Maria M. Munoz Gotia v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA M. MUNOZ GOTIA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70054
Agency No. A216-626-121
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
DEC 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-70054
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 of 3 --

3 19-70054
prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --