Court Opinion

ID: 6345091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-27 20:00:32.594179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:49:19.811219
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 27 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BLANCA ESTELA CHICAS-DE                         No.    19-72738
QUINTANILLA, et al.,
                                                Agency Nos.       A208-380-927
                Petitioners,                                      A208-380-928

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted May 17, 2022**

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

      Blanca Estela Chicas-De Quintanilla and her minor daughter, natives and

citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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 application for asylum and denying Chicas-De Quintanilla’s

application 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners failed

to establish that they 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

and Chicas-De Quintanilla’s withholding of removal claims fail.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Chicas-De Quintanilla 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 El

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

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                   19-72738