NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDVIN ANDRADE-RAMIREZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-70615 

Agency No. A070-125-318 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Edvin Andrade-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of 

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our 

* 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

MAR 17 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-70615 

jurisdiction is governed by 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 review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 

F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition 

for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that AndradeRamirez failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of his 

membership in the proposed particular social group of “a member of his family 

who has been targeted by sicarios on account of this membership.” See INS v. 

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some

evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also 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”). To the extent Andrade-Ramirez raises particular 

social groups in his opening brief that differ from the group considered by the 

agency, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 

674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented 

to the agency). Because Andrade-Ramirez does not challenge the agency’s 

determinations that he failed to establish persecution on account of his status as an 

indigenous Guatemalan, his nationality, or his religion, we do not address them. 
3 18-70615 

See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, 

Andrade-Ramirez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because Andrade-Ramirez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be 

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

Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). AndradeRamirez’s contentions that the agency failed to consider appropriate factors and 

evidence in its CAT analysis fail. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 

(9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA need not write an exegesis on every contention); 

Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not 

overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.