VILMA SANTOS DIAZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73452 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 16, 2018.
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VILMA LETICIA SANTOS DIAZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73452 Agency No. A200-824-042 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Vilma Leticia Santos Diaz, 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 decision denying her application for withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and administrative * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). closure. 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Santos Diaz’s challenge to the agency’s denial of administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1118-20 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Santos Diaz failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm she fears and a protected ground. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017) (applicant seeking withholding of removal must prove that a protected ground was a reason for persecution); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members has no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Santos Diaz’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Santos Diaz failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Aden v. 2 15-73452 Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject Santos Diaz’s contention that the BIA violated due process by failing to rule on her “motion to remand” as raised in her appeal brief to the BIA. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 15-73452
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.
