NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MILTON ALDANA-VASQUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-1313

Agency No.

A208-569-729

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 26, 2024**

Seattle, Washington

Before: WARDLAW and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and CORLEY, District

Judge.

***

Milton Aldana-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley, United States District Judge

for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAY 7 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-1313

immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, 

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

1. We review the Board’s nexus determination for substantial evidence.1

Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023). Under that 

standard, we must accept the agency’s findings “unless any reasonable adjudicator 

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); see 

Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357, 365 (2021). 

Eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal requires that an applicant 

establish a nexus between persecution and a protected ground. Lkhagvasuren v. 

Lynch, 849 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (as amended); see UmanaEscobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 551 (9th Cir. 2023) (“A nexus between the harm 

and a protected ground is a necessary element of asylum and withholding of 

1 We have previously reviewed the Board’s nexus determinations for substantial

evidence. See, e.g., Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.

2023). We have also described the issue of “whether a persecutor’s motives meet 

the nexus legal standards” as legal, not factual. Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69

F.4th 544, 551–53 (9th Cir. 2023); cf. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n ex rel. CWCapital 

Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. 387, 394, 395–96 (2018) 

(noting that “the standard of review for a mixed question all depends on whether 

answering it entails primarily legal or factual work”). We need not consider

whether de novo review might be appropriate in this case, however, because 

Aldana-Vasquez has not established nexus under either standard. Cf. Fon v. 

Garland, 34 F.4th 810, 813 n.1 (9th Cir. 2022) (declining to address whether de 

novo review applied because the outcome was the same under any standard).
3 22-1313

removal.”). Here, the Board upheld the immigration judge’s finding “that there is 

no nexus between the harm that [Aldana-Vasquez] encountered and feared and a 

protected ground of relief.” 

Assuming without deciding that Aldana-Vasquez has preserved a challenge 

to that finding, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

determination that he failed to establish a nexus between any harm and a protected 

ground.

2 Aldana-Vasquez repeatedly testified that anonymous criminal groups

extorted him because of his perceived wealth, and he conceded that he was not 

persecuted on other protected grounds. “Random, isolated criminal acts perpetrated 

by anonymous thieves do not establish persecution.” Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004). Because “[t]he lack of a nexus to a protected ground is 

dispositive of [the] asylum and withholding of removal claims,” we decline to 

further address those issues. Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 

2016).

2. Because Aldana-Vasquez’s opening brief did not challenge the Board’s 

determination that he is ineligible for CAT relief, he has forfeited any challenge to 

that determination. See Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 959 (9th Cir. 

2021).

2 Aldana-Vasquez does not argue that the Board applied an incorrect standard of 

review to the immigration judge’s determination.
4 22-1313

PETITION DENIED.