NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REYNA MAGDALENA ZAVALA DE 

GOMEZ; et al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-70112 

Agency Nos. A208-125-663 

A208-125-664 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 20, 2021**

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Reyna Magdalena Zavala de Gomez and her minor daughter, natives and 

citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision 

denying their application 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 10 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-70112 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252. We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group 

is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s 

interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 

947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in concluding that petitioners did not establish 

membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 

social 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 determination that petitioners otherwise failed to demonstrate a nexus 

between the harm they experienced or fear in El Salvador and 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 members 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 
3 17-70112 

Zavala de Gomez failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by 

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. 

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Zavala de Gomez’s motion (Docket Entry No. 51) to remand and terminate

proceedings for lack of jurisdiction is denied. See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 

F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from NTA can be 

cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).

Petitioners’ opposed request for mediation (Docket Entry No. 62) is denied.

As stated in the court’s March 1, 2017 order, the temporary stay of removal 

remains in place until the issuance of the mandate. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.