KARLA GOMEZ DE CHACON V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-73329 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 3 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KARLA P. GOMEZ DE CHACON, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-73329 Agency No. A201-426-637 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 26, 2020** Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Karla P. Gomez De Chacon, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, 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 * 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). agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Gomez De Chacon does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that she did not establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Gomez De Chacon’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Gomez De Chacon failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Gomez De Chacon’s request for a bond hearing (Docket Entry No. 21) is denied because this court does not adjudicate bond or custody status through a petition for review. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (eligible detainees may seek a bond hearing from an immigration judge, appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and then seek review of the determination by filing a habeas corpus petition in district court). Gomez De Chacon’s alternative request (Docket Entry No. 21) for transfer to a detention 2 19-73329 center in California is denied for similar reasons; Gomez De Chacon points to no legal authority for this court to entertain a transfer request on a petition for review. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-73329
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.
