NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NUBIA GRACIBEL MARTINEZ

GUTIERREZ; et al.,

Petitioners,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72498 Agency Nos. A208

- 163

- 858

A208

- 163

- 859 A208

- 163

- 860 A208

- 166

- 187 A208

- 166

- 188

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 19, 2019 **
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Nubia Gracibel Martinez

- Gutierrez, her husband, and three children, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“ B IA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denyi ng their application s for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

* 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. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 72498

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), exc ept to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review f or substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v. Ho lder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014).
W e review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We deny the petition for review

. The agency did not err in finding that petitioners failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.’” (quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish that the harm they suffered or fear in Hond uras was or would be 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 members3 18

- 72498

bears no nexus to a protected ground.”) . Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tort ured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia

- Milian , 755 F.3d
at 1033

- 35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state a ction for CAT relief

). Petitioners’ contention that the agency violated their due process rights is unpersuasive. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.