NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS2

decision of th e Immigration Judge (IJ) denying their application s for asylum, withholding of removal , and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1 252. “ 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 appli cant “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 )

. S ubstantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners did not show the required nexus between any alleged harm and Petitioners’ membership in th eir 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 just3

her. Rodriguez Arriola further a dmitted that the gangs targeted vendors based on
the vendor’s products and the am ount 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 groun d. 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, s ubstantial evidence supports the denial of
Petitioners’ application s for with holding 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 s he “will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed” to h er native country. Xochihua

- Jaimes v. Barr , 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).
P etitioners did not put forward evidence compelling the conclusion that it is more likely than not that they w ill be tortured with the consent or acquiescence o f the
Guatemalan government. See Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1034

– 354

(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 ineffectiv e 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.