SANJUANA RANGEL-FONSECA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73855 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANJUANA RANGEL-FONSECA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73855 Agency No. A205-054-438 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Sanjuana Rangel-Fonseca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales 453 F.3d 1182, 118485 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo questions of law, Vinh Tan Nguyen v. Holder, 763 F.3d 1022, 1027 (9th Cir. 2014). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, and remand. The agency did not have the benefit of our decision in Ramirez-Contreras v. Sessions, 858 F.3d 1298 (9th Cir. 2017), holding that California Vehicle Code § 2800.2(a) is not a crime involving moral turpitude, when it determined that Rangel-Fonseca’s conviction under § 2800.2(a) was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. We therefore remand for the agency to consider RangelFonseca’s eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Ramirez-Contreras, 853 F.3d at 1306 (holding § 2800.2 is indivisible). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Rangel-Fonseca failed to establish a nexus between the harm she fears and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, her withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Rangel-Fonseca’s CAT claim because she did not demonstrate a particularized threat of torture, and her 2 15-73855 generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is insufficient to meet the standard for relief. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; REMANDED. 3 15-73855
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.
