Bertha Davalos-Alejandre, et al v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-72184 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BERTHA ALICIA DAVALOSALEJANDRE; MAYRA YANNETH DAVALOS-ALEJANDRE; EVA ALEJANDRA-BARAJAS, a.k.a. Eva Alejandre-Barajas, No. 08-72184 Agency Nos. A079-162-453 A079-162-454 A079-162-459 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM * v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 5, 2011 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Bertha Alicia Davalos-Alejandre, her sister Mayra Yanneth DavalosAlejandre, and her mother Eva Alejandra-Barajas, natives and citizens of Mexico, * 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). petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s determination that petitioners failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of membership in a particular social group, political opinion, or any other protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992); 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 ). In the absence of past persecution, petitioners cannot qualify for humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners established a pattern or practice of persecution against women asserting sexual assault claims in Mexico. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly, petitioners asylum claims fail. 2 08-72184 Because petitioners failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, their claims for withholding of removal necessarily fail. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence supports the agency s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured if removed to Mexico. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68. Finally, petitioners have not shown a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring both error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 08-72184
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.
