NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANA IBET ISAGUIRRE ELIAS; KRISTEL No. 18-73203 ANABEL CHOCHOM ISAGUIRRE, Agency Nos. A208-659-133 Petitioners, A208-659-134 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 3, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: SILER,*** RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. * 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). *** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Ana Isaguirre-Elias is a Guatemalan native who came to the United States in 2016 with her young daughter (collectively, Petitioners).1 They tried to enter without valid documentation and were ultimately placed into removal proceedings. Petitioners conceded removability but applied for relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge (IJ) denied their applications and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed their appeal. Petitioners timely sought this court’s review. As explained below, we deny the petition. Asylum and Withholding of Removal. To be eligible for asylum or withholding of removal, applicants must establish a nexus between the persecution suffered and a protected ground, such as “nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (asylum); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (withholding of removal); see also Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners failed to establish the requisite nexus. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended (reviewing nexus determination under highly deferential substantial evidence standard). Isaguirre-Elias testified that she fled Guatemala 1 There are no relevant differences, for this disposition, between Isaguirre-Elias’s and her daughter’s applications for relief. 2 “[b]ecause of the fear of gangs,” and that she is afraid to return because the gangs would be angry about her refusal to pay extortion demands. There is no evidence in the record, however, to suggest that the gangs targeted her because of a protected ground. Instead, Isaguirre-Elias testified that the gangs pursued her because of her perceived wealth, and admitted that this type of gang extortion was common for the area. “An alien’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.” Id. at 1016; see also Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding no-nexus finding where there was “no evidence that the perpetrators victimized [the applicant] on account of his race as opposed to” being targeted for theft). Isaguirre-Elias also argues that the BIA erred by not considering her political opinion ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals