NORA CORNEJO-DE FRANCO V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-72950 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 13 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NORA ESTELA CORNEJO-DE FRANCO; et al., No. 18-72950 Agency Nos. Petitioners, v. A208-170-459 A208-170-313 A208-170-456 A208-170-457 A208-170-458 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM* On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Nora Cornejo-De Franco, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se on behalf of herself, her husband, and her three children for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, * 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). and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Cornejo-De Franco failed to establish that the harm she and her family suffered or fear in El Salvador was or would be on account of a protected ground. See 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, Cornejo-De Franco’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In her opening brief, Cornejo-De Franco does not challenge the BIA’s denial of her CAT claim. See Lopez-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). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to CAT relief. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2

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.