N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ANA M AR IA R IVAS DE TAM AC AS and R OB ER TO IVAN TAM AC AS POR TILLO, Pe titione rs, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 09-70351 Age n c y Nos. A098-952-565

A098-952-566 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm i tte d June 16, 2014 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : REINHAR

DT a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SETTLE, Distric t Judge . ** 

# FIL ED JUN 25 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.Ana

M aria R iva s de Tam a c a s a

nd R obe rto Iva

n Ta m a c a s Portillo, na

tive s and c itiz e ns of El Sa lva dor, pe t ition for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing the ir a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing the ir a

p p lic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we de ny

the pe tition. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t pe titione rs fa ile d to m e e t the ir burde n of showing they suffe re d pa st pe rse c ution on a c c ount of m e m b e rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. Se e Ay ala v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097–98 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ) . Like w ise , the pe t itione rs fa ile d to de m onstra

te an obje c tive we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se e ArriagaBarrie ntos v . U.S.I.N

. S. , 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th C ir. 1991) (pe titione r m ust e sta blish a patte rn of pe rse c ution c lose ly tie d to pe titione r to e sta blish a we l lfounde d fe ar). Pe titione rs we re not pe rsona l ly ha rm e d or pe rsona lly

thre a te ne d, the re is no pe rsua sive e vide n c e tha t the killings of the ir fam ily m e m be rs we re e fforts to ha

rm or atta c k pe titione rs e m otiona lly , and the re is no pe rsua sive e vide nc e tha

t the killings were m otiva te d by fam ily m e m be rship. The B IA’ s finding with re ga rd to im pute d politic a l opinion is a lso supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . The m otive of the a ssa ila nts is unknown a

nd it wa s 2re a s ona

ble to c onc lude tha

t the inc ide n ts we re random a c ts of viole nc e . Se e Oc hav e v . I.N

.S. , 254 F.3d 859, 866 (9th C i r. 2001) . B e c a use pe titione rs fa ile d to pre se nt suffic ie nt e vide nc e to show the y we re e ligiblefor a sy lum , the y ne c e ssa rily fa ile d to m ake the m ore stringe n t showing tha t the y we re e ligiblefor withholding of rem ova l. Se e Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C ir. 2006). Pe titione rs did not m ake any argum e nt re ga

rding the B IA’ s de n ia l of C AT re lie f in the ir ope ning brie f. The re fore the ir C AT c la i m is wa ive d. Se e Martine

zSe rrano v . I.N

.S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996). AFFIRM E D.

3