Court Opinion

ID: 9926165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 22:00:45.322436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:07.703352
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 23 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARICELA VALENCIA ALVAREZ; et                   No. 22-973
al.,                                            Agency Nos.
                                                A206-267-096
             Petitioners,                       A209-168-990
                                                A206-267-097
 v.
                                                A206-267-098
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,                                        MEMORANDUM*

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Maricela Valencia Alvarez and her children, natives and citizens of Mexico,

petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing

their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for

      *
             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).
asylum, and Valencia Alvarez’s applications for withholding of removal and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We

review de novo questions of law. Id. We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to establish they were or would be persecuted on account of a proposed

particular social group related to family. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,

483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or

circumstantial”); see 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 members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).

Because petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determination regarding a

proposed particular social group related to small business owners, we do not

address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

      Because Valencia Alvarez failed to establish any nexus at all, she also failed

to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,

846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).

                                         2                                   22-973
      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Valencia Alvarez failed to show it is more likely than not she will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no

likelihood of torture).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                       3                                    22-973