NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 7 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIELA ABIGAIL PALMA-                          No.   16-72786
SANDOVAL,
                                                 Agency No. A206-445-011
                Petitioner,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Gabriela Abigail Palma-Sandoval, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

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, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention



      *
             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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 

, 1166 (9th

Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation

of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 

, 535

(9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 

, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de

novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. 

. We deny the petition for review.

      The BIA did not err in finding that Palma-Sandoval failed to establish

membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 

, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular

social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of

members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with

particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting

Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence

supports the agency’s determination that Palma-Sandoval otherwise failed to

establish that she would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See

Zetino v. Holder, 

, 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, Palma-Sandoval’s asylum


                                           2
and withholding of removal claims fail.

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Palma-Sandoval failed to show that it is more likely than not she would be tortured

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El

Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 

, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

       Palma-Sandoval’s contention that the agency violated her due process rights

fails. See Lata v. INS, 

, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to

prevail on a due process claim).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          3