Ramirez Muniz v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SOLEDAD ONEYDA RAMIREZ MUNIZ, No. 23-965 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-679-616 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 16, 2024 ** Before: SILVERMAN, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Soledad Oneyda Ramirez Muniz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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). Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramirez Muniz did not establish that the government of Mexico is unable or unwilling to control the agents of any feared persecution. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel a finding that the government was unwilling or unable to control the feared harm). Thus, Ramirez Muniz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Because Ramirez Muniz does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she waived any challenge to the denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 23-965