GABRIELA O. QUINONEZ, AKA Gabriela Oliva Quinonez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIELA O. QUINONEZ, AKA
Gabriela Oliva Quinonez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70159
Agency No. A073-986-543
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 30, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ, CLIFTON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Gabriela O. Quinonez petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum and other relief under
FILED
JUN 30 2016
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 --

the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not
recount them here. We deny the petition for review.
Quinonez challenges the BIA’s determination that her conviction for arson
in violation of California Penal Code § 451(d) was a “particularly serious crime,”
making her ineligible for asylum or for withholding of removal under the INA and
the CAT. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). The BIA did not
abuse its discretion in determining that Quinonez’s arson conviction was a
“particularly serious crime” based on the nature of the conviction, the sentence
imposed, and the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction. See Arbid
v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 384-85 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (setting forth
standard of review and factors for consideration).
Quinonez also argues that the IJ erred by concluding that her arson
conviction was categorically an “aggravated felony” as defined by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(F). However, this argument is irrelevant because the BIA declined
to reach this issue. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.
2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied
upon by that agency.” (citation omitted)).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of deferral of
removal under the CAT because Quinonez failed to establish that it is more likely
than not she will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of
Guatemala. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --