Maria Elena RAMOS RAMIREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: January 14, 2020
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Maria Elena Ramos Ramirez, Pro Se Hailey De Exide Lopez Ramos, Pro Se Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jonathan Kevin Ross, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Maria Elena Ramos Ramirez and her minor child, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish that the harm they experienced or fear in Guatemala was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); 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.”). We do not reach petitioners’ contentions regarding whether their past harm rose to the level of persecution. See Navas v. I.N.S., 217 F.3d 646, 658 n.16 (9th Cir. 2000) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the agency). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence 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 Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.