NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SILVIA PEREZ-ANAYA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-73172 

Agency No. A206-501-329 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 14, 2022**

San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Silvia Perez-Anaya, a citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge 

(IJ) order denying her applications for withholding of removal, cancellation of 

* 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). In light of the Court’s previous 

order dispensing with oral argument, Dkt. No. 32, the joint motion to submit the case 

on the briefs, Dkt. No. 33, is denied as moot. 

FILED

MAR 16 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review for 

substantial evidence and may grant relief only if the facts compel a contrary 

conclusion. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). When the 

BIA adopts the decision of the IJ as its final decision, we consider the IJ’s decision

as well. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011). We have jurisdiction 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part and dismiss in part.

1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal. 

“To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must demonstrate that it is more 

likely than not that he would be subject to persecution on one of the specified 

protected grounds.” Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). 

Perez-Anaya claims membership in two particular social groups: (1) her family, and 

(2) immediate relatives of Mexican government officials. 

Assuming, as the IJ did, that these groups are cognizable, substantial evidence 

supports the agency’s determination that Perez-Anaya did not show she would be 

persecuted because of her membership in these groups. Perez-Anaya testified to 

criminal incidents involving her brothers in Mexico, but “random” criminal acts “do 

not amount to persecution.” Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 

2004). In addition, Perez-Anaya was never personally threatened or harmed when 

she lived in Mexico, and some of her family members continue to live in Mexico 
3 

unharmed. “The ongoing safety of family members in the petitioner’s native 

country undermines a reasonable fear of future persecution.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 

F.4th 1052, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021). Thus, substantial evidence supports the denial of 

withholding of removal.

2. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. PerezAnaya has not demonstrated that “she will more likely than not be tortured with the 

consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed to her native country.”

Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). While Perez-Anaya 

points to the experiences of her brothers in Mexico, she does not explain how those

experiences compel the conclusion that she would be tortured if returned to Mexico.

3. Cancellation of removal is available for non-citizens who meet certain 

criteria if “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to 

the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien 

lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(1)(D). But we lack 

jurisdiction over challenges to the IJ’s “subjective, discretionary determination that 

a petitioner did not demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” and 

can only review claims presenting a “colorable” legal issue. De Mercado v. 

Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 815–16 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and 

alteration omitted). 

To the extent Perez-Anaya asks us to reevaluate the IJ’s hardship 
4 

determination based on her husband’s health condition, we lack jurisdiction to

consider that argument. And Perez-Anaya does not point to any error of law in the 

agency’s decision.

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.