NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 16 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROCELIA JERONIMO DOMINGO DE No. 20-72765 CRUZ; et al., Agency Nos. A208-304-629 Petitioners, A208-304-630 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Rocelia Jeronimo Domingo de Cruz and her child, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. As to petitioners’ claim of past persecution based on insults and mistreatment Domingo de Cruz experienced as a child, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the experiences did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As to harm from gang members, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners did not establish a nexus to a protected ground, including their Mayan ethnicity. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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”). To the extent petitioners contend they established membership in a particular social group, we lack jurisdiction to consider the issue. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). We also 2 20-72765 lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention that the IJ erred in analyzing past persecution. See id. We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred in analyzing past persecution. As to petitioners’ claim of future persecution, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish their fear is objectively reasonable. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well- founded fear of persecution”); see also Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals