NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZELAIDA CRISTINA MEDRANO- No. 16-70752 GUARDADO; JUSTIN ALEXANDER DE LEON-MEDRANO, A Juvenile Male, Agency Nos. A206-779-358 A206-779-359 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 7, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges Zelaida Cristina Medrano-Guardado and her minor son (together, “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Petitioners’ appeal from an * 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). immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Petitioners’ application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). 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 BIA’s denial of Petitioners’ asylum claim. Petitioners have not experienced past persecution, and while their family and friends have suffered violence, Petitioners fail to show that this violence was “part of ‘a pattern of persecution closely tied to’” Petitioners. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Arriega-Barreintos v. I.N.S., 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991)). Petitioners claim they will suffer violence at the hands of gangs in El Salvador, but their general fear of violent conditions is insufficient to support a claim for asylum. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground”). To the extent Petitioners claim they will be persecuted on account of their family membership, they present no evidence indicating that the violence they fear will be motivated by 2 their membership in this group. See id. To the extent Petitioners claim they will be persecuted on account of social condition of “kleptocracy,” they also fail to connect this fear to any protected ground. See id. Our conclusion is not affected by the differing nexus standards applicable to asylum and withholding of removal claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing Zetino v. Holder having drawn no distinction between the standards where there was no nexus at all to a protected ground). Petitioners do not challenge the BIAs’ determination that their other ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals