ROSA BLANCO V. ERIC HOLDER, No. 10-73814 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSA GUILLERMINA BLANCO, Petitioner, No. 10-73814 Agency No. A088-965-787 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 7, 2015** Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Rosa Guillermina Blanco, 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 decision denying her application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial * 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). evidence the agency’s factual findings. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Blanco does not challenge the BIA’s finding that she did not establish past persecution. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Blanco failed to establish that a protected ground, including membership in a social group or a political opinion, would be a central reason for her being targeted. See 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”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from . . . random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). In light of our conclusion, we need not reach Blanco’s other contentions regarding withholding of removal. Thus, her withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-73814

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.