NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INMER ANIB A L RAMOS

- PA I Z; et al.
,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent. No. 22

- 1153 Agency No s

. A208

- 176

- 331 A208

- 176

- 333

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted July 18, 2023 **

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Inmer Anib a l Ramos

- Pa i z 1 and his son , native s and citizen s of

Guatemala , petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judg e’s (“IJ’s”)
decision denying their application for asylum
, and denying Ramos

- Pa i z’s

* 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).

1 The clerk will amend the docket to change petitioner’s name to Inmer Anib a l Ramos

- Paiz, in accordance with the agency decision, filed at Docket Entry No. 9. 

# FILED

AUG 9 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 1153

application for withholding of removal. 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 petitioners

faile d to establish they w ere or would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. See 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 membe rs bears no nexus to a protected ground”).

Thus, petitioner s’ asylum claim fails. Because Ramos

- Pa i z failed to establish
any nexus at all, he also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of

removal. See Barajas

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 359

- 60 (9th Cir. 2017).
We do not address petitioner s ’ contentions as to harm rising to the level
of persecution because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See

Santiago

- Rodriguez v. Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing

the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that
agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Ramos

- Paiz did not argu e before the BIA that the IJ violated due process,

and as such, he did not exhaust the contention and we decline to address

it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies
required); see also Santos

- Zacaria v. Garland , 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1113

- 14 (2023)
(section 1252(d)(1) is a non

- jurisdictional claim

- processing rule). Petitioners’3 22

- 1153

claim that the BIA violated due process by failing to provide a reasoned opinion
is unsupported by the record.

Petitioners’ request for remand to seek prosecutorial discretion is

denied

. See Morales de Soto v. Lynch , 824 F.3d 822, 826

- 27 (9th Cir. 2016)
(government’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion not subject to judicial review,

and remand not warranted based on changes in policy).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.