SALES v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Amilcar Osiel Miranda Sales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“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 determination that the harm Sales suffered in Guatemala did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner’s past harm constituted persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that, even if Sales’s family is a cognizable social group, Sales failed to establish that the harm he fears would be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”) (emphasis in original); 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.”). Thus, Sales’s asylum claim fail.

In this case, because Sales failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Sales failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.