Josefina Son Tecum v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEFINA SON TECUM,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71334
Agency No. A208-130-656
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Josefina Son Tecum, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
* 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
AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Son Tecum does not make any argument challenging the agency’s
dispositive conclusion that her proposed social group of “young school-aged
women being targeted by gangs” is not cognizable. 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).
Even considering the claimed social group as one of “young school-aged
women”, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Son Tecum
failed to establish that she was or would be persecuted on account of her
membership in that group. 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, Son Tecum’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --