SONIA PEREIRA DE SOUZA NUNES V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 17-71165 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SONIA PEREIRA DE SOUZA NUNES, AKA Sonia Pereira de Souza Nunez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-71165 Agency No. A208-924-113 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2022** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Sonia Pereira De Souza Nunes, a native and citizen of Brazil, 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 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 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). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pereira De Souza Nunes failed to establish that the harm she experienced or fears was or would be on account of a protected ground, including membership in an advocacybased particular social group aimed at helping women. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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, Pereira De Souza Nunes’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this disposition, we need not reach her remaining contentions regarding the merits of these claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). In her opening brief, Pereira De Souza Nunes does not contest, and therefore waives, any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT protection. See Lopez- 2 17-71165 Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-71165
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.
