Maria Concepcion Guevara- Zetino 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 CONCEPCION GUEVARA-
ZETINO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72755
Agency No. A097-909-326
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Maria Concepcion Guevara-Zetino, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her
FILED
MAR 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-72755 2
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Guevara-Zetino was a
victim of general criminal activity, because she failed to establish that gang
members extorted money, robbed, and raped her on account of a protected ground.
See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865-66 (9th Cir. 2001) (no nexus between rape
by guerrillas and a protected ground). We lack jurisdiction to consider Guevara-
Zetino’s unexhausted contention that she has been or will be persecuted on account
of her gender. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, Guevara-Zetino’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Guevara-Zetino failed to establish that it is more likely than not she will be tortured
by or with the acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-72755 3
Finally, we decline to address the evidence Guevara-Zetino submitted that is
not already part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --