NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZULMA ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ 

ARRIOLA; et al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72782 

Agency Nos. A208-306-803 

A208-306-804 

A208-306-805 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 1, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Zulma Elizabeth Rodriguez Arriola, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and 

her two minor daughters (collectively, Petitioners), petition for review of the order 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from a 

* 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 1 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying their applications for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 

(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review the denial of 

asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence.” 

Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). “Under this 

standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a 

contrary conclusion.” Id. We deny the petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Petitioners’ applications 

for asylum. An asylum applicant “must demonstrate that [s]he has suffered past 

persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, 

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 

Id.; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners did 

not show the required nexus between any alleged harm and Petitioners’ 

membership in their proposed social group, “members of the Rodriguez Arriola 

family targeted by gangs.” See Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir. 

2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)) (to prevail on asylum claim, applicant 

must show that the protected ground was “at least one central reason” the applicant 

was persecuted). As the BIA and IJ recognized, Rodriguez Arriola testified that 

the gangs targeted and demanded money from all vendors in the market, not just 
3 

her. Rodriguez Arriola further admitted that the gangs targeted vendors based on 

the vendor’s products and the amount of money the gangs believed they could 

solicit from the vendor, and not for any other reason. Harm on account of general 

crime and violence does not establish a nexus to a protected ground. See Zetino v. 

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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.”).

2. For the same reason, substantial evidence supports the denial of 

Petitioners’ applications for withholding of removal. See Macedo Templos v. 

Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 881–82 (9th Cir. 2021) (to establish entitlement to 

withholding of removal, applicant alleging harm based on membership in a 

particular social group must show that membership in the group is “a reason” for 

the mistreatment).

3. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. An 

applicant for CAT relief must demonstrate 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). 

Petitioners did not put forward evidence compelling the conclusion that it is more 

likely than not that they will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the 

Guatemalan government. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034–35
4 

(9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that “[e]vidence that the police were aware of a 

particular crime, but failed to bring the perpetrators to justice,” or evidence that a 

government “has been generally ineffective in preventing or investigating criminal 

activities,” without “evidence of corruption or other inability or unwillingness to 

oppose criminal organizations,” is insufficient to establish acquiescence).

PETITION DENIED.