Jessica Marilu Aguilar- Sandoval v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSICA MARILU AGUILAR-
SANDOVAL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73458
Agency No. A200-974-437
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jessica Marilu Aguilar-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her
application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against
* 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
MAY 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-73458
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947
F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
Aguilar-Sandoval experienced in Guatemala did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005)
(persecution is an extreme concept). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that Aguilar-Sandoval did not establish a clear probability
of future persecution in Guatemala. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35
(9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner’s evidence did not show clear probability of future
persecution). Thus, Aguilar-Sandoval’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Aguilar-Sandoval 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 Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as unsupported by
the record Aguilar-Sandoval’s contentions that the agency applied an incorrect
legal standard or otherwise erred in the analysis of her CAT claim.
To the extent Aguilar-Sandoval contends that she is eligible for asylum, we
lack jurisdiction to consider her contentions because she abandoned her application

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-73458
before the IJ. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --