
    Aura Alicia Morales CASTRO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72221.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 3, 2011.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ali Manuchehry, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aura Alicia Morales Castro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Morales Castro contends she will be harmed based on her membership in a particular social group consisting of Guatemalan women who have witnessed serious crimes. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that she failed to demonstrate that she was or would be persecuted on the basis of a protected ground. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004) (fears stemming from isolated criminal acts of violence do not provide a basis for relief). Morales Castro’s assertion that the IJ violated her due process rights by failing to address the gender aspect of her claim is belied by the record. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971-72 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to establish a due process violation). Accordingly, Morales Castro’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     