Maria Del Sagrario Meza- Loreto 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 DEL SAGRARIO MEZA-
LORETO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72168
Agency No. A095-663-525
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Maria Del Sagrario Meza-Loreto, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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,
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72168 2
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings and review de novo its legal conclusions. Benyamin
v. Holder, 579 F.3d 970, 974 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Meza-Loreto does not contend she suffered past persecution in Mexico.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if Meza-Loreto is a
member of a particular social group, her fear of future persecution is not
objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(fear of future persecution too speculative). In addition, Meza-Loreto’s claim that
she fears persecution in Pakistan fails because that is not her country of nationality.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
Because Meza-Loreto failed to meet her burden to establish eligibility for
asylum, she necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding
of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Meza-Loreto failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she
would face torture if returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066,
1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --