NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ENEIDA GARCIA OLVERA; et al., No. 18-71811 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-677-334 A206-677-331 v. A206-677-332 A206-677-333 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, A206-677-335 Respondent. MEMORANDUM* On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 10, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: PARKER,*** CHRISTEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Eneida Garcia Olvera (“Garcia Olvera”), Candelario Berduzco Garcia (“Berduzco Garcia”), and their minor children (collectively, “Petitioners”) seek * 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 Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in which the BIA upheld the immigration judge’s denial of Petitioners’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the regulations implementing the Conventions Against Torture (“CAT”). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1),1 and we deny the petition. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that Petitioners are ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal and reverse “only if the evidence in the record compels a contrary result.” See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1 (1992); Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004)). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners failed to show that any harm they suffered was on account of their membership in a particular social group or Berduzco Garcia’s imputed political opinion. 1 We reject Petitioners’ argument that pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over their removal proceedings because their Notices to Appear did not include the date and time of their hearings. This Court acknowledged in Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019), that Pereira’s holding was limited to the application of the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal, which is not an issue presented in, and therefore does not govern, this case. Id. at 1161. Moreover, a notice to appear lacking information regarding the date and time of the scheduled removal hearing, together with a subsequently served notice of hearing—which Petitioners received—are sufficient to cure any alleged jurisdictional defect. Id. at 1161-62. 2 Persecution on account of economic reasons—without more—is not a protected ground for asylum or withholding of removal. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016 (“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”); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that “victims of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals