Court Opinion

ID: 9865476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 18:00:39.733257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:33.956948
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADELMIRA ALEJANDRA                              No. 22-1088
CASTANEDA-GONZALEZ; et al.,                     Agency Nos.
                                                A206-801-415
             Petitioners,                       A206-801-416
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Adelmira Alejandra Castaneda-Gonzalez and her minor daughter, natives

and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision

      *
             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).
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 for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.

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

ground. See 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 claim fails. Because they failed to establish any nexus at all,

petitioners also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See

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

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador.

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                   22-1088