ARACELY IRAHETA-DE PEREZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-74067 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 26 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARACELY IRAHETA-DE PEREZ, Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-74067 Agency No. A094-803-552 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 14, 2015 ** Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Aracely Iraheta-De Perez, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Perez failed to establish the harm she suffered or feared was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-1016 (9th Cir. 2010); 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”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Perez’s argument as to family as a social group because she did not raise it to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below). Thus, Perez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fails. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1015-1016. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Perez failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. 2 13-74067 Finally, we deny Perez’s request for “maintenance” of the stay of removal during pendency of the proceedings because there is no stay in effect. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 13-74067
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.
