Sandra Noemi Archila-Mendez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDRA NOEMI ARCHILA-MENDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70158
Agency No. A206-716-613
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Sandra Noemi Archila-Mendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for
asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
FILED
OCT 22 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

§ 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 in part and dismiss
in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Archila-
Mendez did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of her membership in a social group of HIV positive
women. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (being
“teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed,” absent physical harm, did
not compel finding of past persecution); see also Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674
F.3d 1073, 1077-78 (9th Cir. 2011) (no well-founded fear of persecution based on
petitioner’s HIV positive status). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
determination that Archila-Mendez did not establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution on account of her resistance to gang members’
attempts to involve her in an extortion scheme. See Gu v. Gonzalez, 454 F.3d
1014, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present compelling, objective
evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution). We lack jurisdiction
to consider Archila-Mendez’s contention that she will be persecuted on account of
her membership in a particular social group of Guatemalan women because she did
15-70158 2

-- 2 of 3 --

not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004). Thus, we deny the petition as to Archila-Mendez’s asylum claim.
Because Archila-Mendez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, her
withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190
(petitioner’s burden of proof for withholding of removal is more demanding than
asylum).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction over any challenge Archila-Mendez makes to
the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen because she did not file a petition for
review of that order. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Archila-Mendez’s contention that she had
inadequate time to prepare her case before the IJ because she failed to raise this
argument to the BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
15-70158 3

-- 3 of 3 --