NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CESAR VLADIMIR GUZMAN- No. 15-73780 QUINTANILLA; et al., Agency Nos. A206-773-832 Petitioners, A206-773-833 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 15, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Cesar Vladimir Guzman-Quintanilla and his minor sister, 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 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”).1 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 determination that petitioners failed to establish the harm they fear would be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also 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”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they 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). We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contentions that the BIA violated their due process rights by using its streamlining procedures or by failing to explain its reasoning. 1 Petitioners each filed their own applications for relief. 2 15-73780 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-73780 15-73780 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Cesar Guzman-Quintanilla v. Merrick Garland 22 June 2022 Agency Unpublished 814838481c2cee25bc29ce86fbbc3cb3b26bb960
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals