ANA PEREZ-RAMIREZ V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-72863 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 24 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANA MARIA PEREZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, No. 08-72863 Agency No. A098-714-023 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Ana Maria Perez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review * 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). for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review. Perez-Ramirez testified an unidentified man threatened her in El Salvador and that she feared gangs in El Salvador. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Perez-Ramirez failed to show any harm to her was or would be motivated by a protected ground. See Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir. 1998) (criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Thus, Perez-Ramirez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-72863

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.