Mirna Hernandez-Escobar v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIRNA HERNANDEZ-ESCOBAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71758
Agency No. A200-050-679
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mirna Hernandez-Escobar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”).
FILED
APR 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-71758 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006), and
we deny the petition for review.
Hernandez-Escobar testified a neighbor, who was a member of an opposing
political party, threatened her several times and assaulted her once. Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Hernandez-Escobar failed to establish the
harm she suffered, even considered cumulatively, rose to the level of persecution.
See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s
account of being beaten and threatened by a mob did not compel a finding of past
persecution). Nor does the evidence compel the conclusion that the “government
was unable or unwilling to control” the individual harassing Hernandez-Escobar.
Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence
also supports the BIA’s finding that Hernandez-Escobar failed to establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). (“An
applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant could
avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant's country of
nationality. . . .”). Therefore, Hernandez-Escobar’s asylum claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

11-71758 3
Because Hernandez-Escobar has not established eligibility for asylum, she
necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Hernandez-Escobar failed to establish that it is more likely than not she
will be tortured if she returns to El Salvador. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --