[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 15098 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A205

- 265

- 983

ALEXIS MACIAS TORRES, MARIA REMEDIOS TORRES MAGANA, Petitioners ,
versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

.

__________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________ (July 16, 2018)

Before TJOFLAT , MARCUS, and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 1 of 62 The petitioners, Maria Remedios Torres Magana and Alexias Marcia Torres,

are mother and son . They are natives of Mexico. On July 29, 2014, the two arrived at Laredo, Texas and applied for admission to enter the United States

. Neither of them had a valid entry document at the time they sought admission and were therefore inadmissible. 1 They were accordingly ruled to be remov able from the United States. In an attempt to avoid removal, the petitioners sought relief from removal through asylum, 2 withholding of removal, 3 and protection under the Convention against Torture (“CAT” ). 4 The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied relief
and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed that denial. The petitioners have appealed the BIA’s decision

. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) permits an alien to apply for asylum “within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); INA § 208(a)(2)(B). The petitioners, however, waited almost two years to seek asylum. The IJ and BIA therefore refused to consider the petition for asylum as untimely. 5 The INA strips us of jurisdiction to rev iew a

1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)( i) (I) ; Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). 2 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1); INA § 208(a)(1). 3 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); INA § 241(b)(3)(A). 4 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). 5 In so ruling, they determined that the petitioners failed to qualify for one of the two exceptions to the time bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); INA § 208(a)(2)(D) (providing that an alien may file an untimely application for asylum “if the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of

Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 2 of 63 determination of the Attorney General that an asylum claim is time barred. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) ; INA § 208(a)(3)

. 6 As a result, we do not have ju risdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the petitioners filed an untimely asylum petition. We turn to the remaining issue 7 in the petitioners ’ brief on appeal: withholding of removal. 8 We review the IJ ’ s and BIA ’ s legal conclusions de novo

. Mohammed v. Ashcroft , 261 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2001). The IJ’s fact ual findings bind us unless th e record shows that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INA § 242(b)(4)(B). To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must show that his “life or freedom would be threatened in that count r y because of the alien’s race, religion,

the Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application”). 6 S ee Chacon

- Botero v. U.S. Attorney Gen. , 427 F.3d 954, 957 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that “8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) ‘divests our Court of jurisdiction to review a decision regarding whether an alien complied with the one

- year time limit or established extraordinary circumstances that w ould excuse his untimely filing ’ ” (quoting Mendoza v. U.S. Attorney Gen. , 327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2003)) )

. 7 The petitioners ’ brief on appeal raises no arguments as to their entitlement to relief under CAT. Their brief mentions CAT a single time in the plea for relief on its final page. They have therefore waived the argument that the IJ and BIA erred in denying them CAT relief. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. , 739 F.3d 678, 68 1 (11th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n appellant abandons a claim when he either makes only passing references to it o r raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting argument s and authority.”). 8 We have jurisdiction to review this claim

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) ; INA § 242(a)(1). Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 3 of 64 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); INA § 241(b)(3)(A). The alien has the burden to show “more likely than not” that she will face persecut ion or torture upon return to the country in question based on one of these protected grounds

. I.N.S. v. Stevic , 467 U.S. 407, 424, 104 S. Ct. 2489, 2498 (1984) ; see Tan v. U.S. Attorney Gen. , 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006). To carry this burden , the alien must present “specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he will be singled out for persecution on account of” a protected ground. Ruiz v. U.S. Attorney Gen. , 440 F.3d 1247, 1258 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted)

. The alien, in other words, must show a nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected ground, not merely that she “has been the victim of criminal activity

. ” Id.
In this case , one of the petitioners , Maria Torres , operated a shoe stand at a flea market in Los Ocotes, Mexico. One day, men approached her claiming to be government officials . They demanded money from her for a permit to operate her
shoe stand . She gave them the money but never received a permit . In subsequent months, the purported government employees requested more money. Torres believed the men to be corrupt and so refused to pay. When Torres refused, the purported government officials threatened to kill her and her children. In one incident, t he men attempted to force open the door at her home. Torres called the

Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 4 of 65 police but they did not apprehend any suspects. She later filed a report of the incident at a police station

. These purported government officials also demanded money from other
merch ants at the flea market. The petitioners ’ neighbor, who owned a business at the flea market , refused to pay the purported government officials and was found
dead in her home

. The record before us does not compel a conclusion that the petitioners ’ alleged persecution was or would be on account of a protected ground. The evidence suggests that the purported government officials were motivated by financial gain. They demanded money upon a threat of violence

. And they made
similar demands on many of the merchants in the flea market. They were, in other words, common criminals in pursuant of fast cash

. Indeed, as the IJ stated: “there does not appear to be any direct or circumstantial evidence that the two men that extorted the respondent in the fle a market were motivated by [the] actual or perceived anticorruption beliefs [of Torres]

. ” We see no reason to disturb this
determination.
In conclusion , the record does not support that the purported government officials acted out of animus based on one of the protected ground s . The IJ and
BIA therefore made no error in denying the petitioners ’ application for withholding of removal. Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 5 of 66 PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Case: 17-15098 Date Filed: 07/16/2018 Page: 6 of 6