SUGEY A. PINTO RAMOS, AKA Sugey Arelis Pinto, AKA Sugey Arelis Pinto- Ramos, AKA… v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUGEY A. PINTO RAMOS, AKA Sugey
Arelis Pinto, AKA Sugey Arelis Pinto-
Ramos, AKA Sugey Arelis Pintos Ramos,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71934
Agency No. A094-296-113
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Sugey A. Pinto Ramos, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum,
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-71934
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
findings for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241
(9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We do not disturb the BIA’s determination that Pinto Ramos failed to
establish she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See
Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant who
alleges past persecution has the burden of proving that the treatment rises to the
level of persecution); see also Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633
n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence
review applies where result would be the same under either standard). Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Pinto Ramos failed to establish the
harm she fears in Honduras would be on account of a protected ground. See Ayala
v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular
social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or
will be on account of his membership in such group”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by
criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus
to a protected ground”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Pinto Ramos’s new
contentions regarding past harm to her family, political opinion, and a proposed

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-71934
family-based particular social group, because they were not raised to the IJ or BIA.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, Pinto
Ramos’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because Pinto
Ramos failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

-- 3 of 3 --