SANDRA ARCHILA-MENDEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-70158 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANDRA NOEMI ARCHILA-MENDEZ, Petitioner, No. 15-70158 Agency No. A206-716-613 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, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Sandra Noemi Archila-Mendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that ArchilaMendez did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her membership in a social group of HIV positive women. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (being “teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed,” absent physical harm, did not compel finding of past persecution); see also Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 2011) (no well-founded fear of persecution based on petitioner’s HIV positive status). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Archila-Mendez did not establish past persecution or a wellfounded fear of future persecution on account of her resistance to gang members’ attempts to involve her in an extortion scheme. See Gu v. Gonzalez, 454 F.3d 1014, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution). We lack jurisdiction to consider Archila-Mendez’s contention that she will be persecuted on account of her membership in a particular social group of Guatemalan women because she did 2 15-70158 not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we deny the petition as to Archila-Mendez’s asylum claim. Because Archila-Mendez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, her withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190 (petitioner’s burden of proof for withholding of removal is more demanding than asylum). Finally, we lack jurisdiction over any challenge Archila-Mendez makes to the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen because she did not file a petition for review of that order. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Archila-Mendez’s contention that she had inadequate time to prepare her case before the IJ because she failed to raise this argument to the BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 15-70158
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.
