INGRID CERRATO-PINEDA V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 18-70588 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 17 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INGRID JANETH CERRATO-PINEDA; et al., No. 18-70588 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A202-080-950 A202-080-951 A208-751-492 v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 15, 2019** Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Ingrid Cerrato-Pineda and her family, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, * 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). withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“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, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of Cerrato-Pineda’s son’s separate asylum application. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). Cerrato-Pineda testified that her ex-husband raped her, and that she suffered other physical attacks and verbal harassment. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Cerrato-Pineda did not establish the Honduran government was unwilling or unable to protect her from her ex-husband. See Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant bears the burden of establishing that abuse was committed by the government or an agent the government is unwilling or unable to control). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails. In this case, because Cerrato-Pineda did not establish eligibility for asylum, she did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. Thus, her withholding of removal claim fails. 2 18-70588 Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Cerrato-Pineda failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Honduran government. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 18-70588
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.
