Court Opinion

ID: 4465531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-12-18 21:01:38.655124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:42.470481
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 18 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERVACIA NICOLAS ANDRES; et al.,                No.    18-72574

                Petitioners,                    Agency Nos.       A208-598-598
                                                                  A208-598-599
 v.                                                               A208-598-600

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before:      WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

      Gervacia Nicolas Andres, and her two minor children, natives and citizens of

Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

      *
             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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v.

Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

        Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to establish that the harm they suffered or fear in Guatemala was or would be

on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th

Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an

applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his

membership in such group”); 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.”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims

fail.

        Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.

See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not

establish the necessary state action for CAT relief).

                                          2                                      18-72574
      In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining

contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts

and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they

reach).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                     18-72574