MIRIAM HERNANDEZ-ORELLANA V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-71671 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 2 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIRIAM LICET HERNANDEZORELLANA, a.k.a. Ana Daniela Hernandez-Orellana, No. 12-71671 Agency No. A200-208-333 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 23, 2014** Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Miriam Licet Hernandez-Orellana, 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 * 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). 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 for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings. Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s finding that Hernandez-Orellana failed to meet her burden of showing that she suffered past persecution or feared future persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group. See id. at 1097 (even if an asserted social group is cognizable, petitioner must show persecution on account of membership in that group); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) ( to demonstrate that a protected ground was at least one central reason for persecution, an applicant must prove that such ground was a cause of the persecutors acts ). In light of this conclusion, we need not address Hernandez-Orellana s other challenges to the BIA s denial of asylum. Thus, Hernandez-Orellana s asylum claim fails. Because Hernandez-Orellana has not established eligibility for asylum, she necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). 2 12-71671 Finally, Hernandez-Orellana does not raise any arguments regarding the denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party s opening brief are waived). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 12-71671

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.