NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSA MATIAS PABLO; et al., No. 17-70272 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-908-860 A206-908-859 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Rosa Matias Pablo and her daughter, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners did not establish the harm they experienced or fear was or will be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (to establish causal nexus to a protected ground, applicant must provide some evidence of motive, direct or circumstantial); Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (“mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution will not give rise to a valid asylum claim”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum, including humanitarian asylum, and withholding of removal claims fail. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-70272 17-70272 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Rosa Matias Pablo v. Jefferson Sessions 15 June 2018 Agency Unpublished 1a30d11bc6f0b2b6cc520825dcfc54645ece5a62
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals