NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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