Maria Magdalena Garcia- Leiva v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA MAGDALENA GARCIA-
LEIVA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71732
Agency No. A099-533-234
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Maria Magdalena Garcia-Leiva, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
SEP 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71732 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except
to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing
statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).
We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Garcia-Leiva’s contention that she is eligible for asylum and
withholding of removal based upon political opinion. See Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (denying relief where the “available
evidence suggests . . . that Santos-Lemus was victimized for economic and
personal reasons”); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.
2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central
reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). We also reject Garcia-Leiva’s
contention that she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based upon
her membership in a particular social group comprised of government witnesses
against Mara gangs in El Salvador who have been violently attacked, scarred, and
threatened. See Velasco-Cervantes v. Holder, 593 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2010)
(rejecting as a particular social group “former material witnesses for the

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71732 3
government”). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to Garcia-Leiva’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Garcia-Leiva failed to
demonstrate it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if returned to El
Salvador, and therefore we deny the petition as to Garcia-Leiva’s CAT claim. See
Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --