NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TANIA TERESA BAEZ CAMACHO; et al.,

Petitioners,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70101

Agency Nos. A206

- 498

- 705

A206

- 498

- 681 A206

- 498

- 706

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted September 8, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA
, SILVERMAN , and OWENS , Circuit Judges

.
Tania Teresa Baez Camacho and her family, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition for review of the Board of Immigratio n Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decisi on denying their applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

* 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

SEP 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 70101

(“ CAT ”)

. We have jurisd iction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except
to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the gov erning
statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v.

Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for

review.

The agency did not err in determining that petitioner s ’ proposed particular
social group of “small business owners of perceived wealth” is not cognizable. See
Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (“ 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’” ( citation omitted ) ) ; see also Ochoa v. Gonzales
, 406 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 2005) ( a group of “business owners” d id not
constitute a particular social group )
, abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez

Rivas v. Holder , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to

establish a nexus between the harm they experienced and fear
, and a family

- based
particular social group. See INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) ( an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see3 16

- 70101

also 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 memb ers bears no nexus to a protected ground”).

Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claim s fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

petitioners failed to show that it is more likely than not they will be t ortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Zheng v. Holder , 644 F.3d 829, 835

- 36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative).
We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contentions tha t the

agency violated their due process rights or otherwise erred in its analysis of their

claims.

As stated in the court’s March 30, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.