United States v. 2020-11-03 | 19-73329 | KARLA GOMEZ DE CHACON V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARLA P. GOMEZ DE CHACON,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-73329

Agency No. A201-426-637

MEMORANDUM
*

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).
FILED

NOV 3 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-73329
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

3 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.