NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA JARAMILLO HUICOCHEA,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No s
. 18

- 71361 & 19

- 71442 Agency No. A202

- 097

- 786

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 16, 2020 * * San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and EATON, ** * Judge.
R osa Jaramillo Huicochea (“Jaramillo”) , a citizen and native of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) den ying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See F ED
. R. A PP
. P. 34(a)(2) (C)

.
*** Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade , sitting by designation. 

# FILED

NOV 20 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Torture (“ Torture Convention ”). We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)

. 8 U.S.C. § 1252. While we review legal questions de novo, findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence , Hamazaspyan v. Holder , 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009) , meaning that those findings must be upheld unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the peti tion.
1. Substantial e vidence s upports the agency’s conclusion t hat Jaramillo
f ailed to s how p ast p ersecution or a w ell

- f ounded f ear of p ersecution on a ccount of

an e numerated g round

. On the record in this case, the BIA properly upheld the IJ ’s finding that the harms visited on Jaramillo, her husband, and her husband’s nephews were attributable to general organized

- crime activity and violent
conditions , rather than to their membership in a particular family. Jaramillo stated that “members of an organized crime” group killed two of her husband’s nephews because they refused to join the group

. She further testified at the hearing that she came to the United States “[b]e c ause there’s a lot c rime in my state of Guerrero , ” and she acknowledged that the gangs “target everybody that they think they can get money from.” Likewise , her husband testified he was afraid to go back to Mexico “[b]ecause of the crime that exist [s] in Mexico” and a fear o f the “bad people” in
Mexico. We have held that the “ desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a3

protected ground ,” Zetino v. Holder , 622 F. 3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010), and the BIA properly upheld the IJ’s finding that this was such a case. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Jaramillo’s claim s for asylum and withholding of removal

. 2

. S ubstantial e vidence also s upports the agency’s denial of withholding or
deferral of removal under the Torture Convention. To qualify for such relief , “ an applicant bears the burden of establishing 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)

. In contending that she is likely to be tortured, Jaramillo relies on country

conditions reports, as well as on the threats and extortion against her and her
husband and on the violence against her husband’s nephews

. On this record, we cannot say that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s finding that Jaramillo failed to show that it was more probable than not that s he, in particular, would be tortured
with the acquiescence of the Mexican government. Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (“generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to [the petitioner] and is insufficient to meet this standard ” for relief un der the Torture Convention).
3

. Jaramillo also challenges the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen her proceedings on the ground that the IJ lacked “ jurisdiction to commence and4

conduct removal proceedings in [ her ] case because the Notice to Appear char ging document filed with the Immigration Court was defective in that it failed to specify
a time and date for h er removal hearing.” H owever, this argument is foreclosed by

our decision in Karingithi v. Whitaker , 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019), in which we held that “‘a notice to appear that does not specify the time and place of an alien’s initial removal hearing vests an [IJ] with jurisdiction over the removal proceedings

. . . so long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to th e alien.’” Id . at 1161 (citation omitted). In this case, Jaramillo was served with h er assertedly incomplete notice to appear on August 5 , 2014 and was thereafter served

on October 29 , 2014 with a notice of hearing , stating the date and time of h er heari ng . Thus, under Karingithi , jurisdiction properly vested in the immigration
court. The petition for review is DENIED

.