MARTA GIL-RABADO, AKA Martha Olivia Gil, AKA Marta Gonzales v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTA GIL-RABADO, AKA Martha
Olivia Gil, AKA Marta Gonzales,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71770
Agency No. A200-246-293
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Marta Gil-Rabado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
APR 29 2015
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 --

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). We deny
the petition for review.
Gil-Rabado does not challenge the agency’s determination that she did not
establish past persecution in Mexico. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Even if Gil-Rabado qualified for an exception for the
untimely filing of her asylum application, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Gil-Rabado failed to establish that her fear of future
harm was objectively reasonable. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th
Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to “present compelling, objective evidence
demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). We reject Gil-Rabado’s
contention that the IJ applied an erroneous legal standard in concluding that her
fear of persecution was not objectively reasonable. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d
336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995) (disagreement with result did not mean that agency
applied wrong legal standard). Thus, Gil-Rabado’s asylum claim fails.
Because Gil-Rabado 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.
12-71770 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief
because Gil-Rabado failed to establish it is more likely than not that she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-71770 3

-- 3 of 3 --