Nelson Rivera-Navarro v. William Barr


NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NELSON EDENILSON RIVERA- No. 16-71450 NAVARRO; JIMMY ABRAHAM RIVERA-CANEGUS, Agency Nos. A206-731-383 A206-731-382 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Nelson Edenilson Rivera-Navarro and Jimmy Abraham Rivera-Canegus, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications 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”). 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 review de novo due process claims in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish that 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”); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show that it is more likely than not they would 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). Petitioners’ contentions that the agency violated their due process rights fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-71450 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Nelson Rivera-Navarro v. William Barr 7 February 2020 Agency Unpublished 9f6fd79e82b00d83114bbee554c2d8e908935aa5

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals