Molina, et al v. Holder, No. 05-76512 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 08 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALARIA MOLINA, No. 05-76512 Petitioner, Agency No. A070-109-044 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 4, 2010 ** Pasadena, California Before: WALLACE and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MILLS,*** Senior District Judge. Valaria Molina, 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 ("IJ") decision denying her application for protection under * 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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation. the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s denial of CAT relief. Although Molina suffered an armed robbery and rape by suspected gang members in El Salvador, the IJ permissibly found that she did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran government. See id. at 1194 (acquiescence requires "both actual knowledge and willful blindness" (internal quotation marks omitted)). We lack jurisdiction to review Molina s contention that the IJ abused her discretion by failing to consider documents supporting Molina s CAT claim because Molina did not raise the issue in her brief to the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Finally, we reject Molina s contention that the BIA failed to consider the additional evidence that she submitted on appeal. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 96 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring alien to overcome presumption that BIA considered all the relevant evidence). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.