MARIA MUNOZ GOTIA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-70054 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA M. MUNOZ GOTIA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-70054 Agency No. A216-626-121 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Maria M. Munoz Gotia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for * 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). substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Munoz Gotia failed to establish she suffered harm in Mexico that rose to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Munoz Gotia failed to establish that any harm she fears in Mexico 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, Munoz Gotia’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. We reject Munoz Gotia’s contention that the agency violated her due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to 2 19-70054 prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-70054
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.
