NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
APOLONIO SAENZ-SANCHEZ, et al., No. 17-73493
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A208-160-335
A208-160-336
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting MEMORANDUM*
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Apolonio Saenz-Sanchez and his daughter, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, 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
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738
(9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners contend they have suffered harm and fear harm because of their
membership in several particular social groups. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish that any harm they
experienced or fear in El Salvador 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”
(emphasis in original)); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010) (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, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or
2 17-73493
with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, we reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA violated their due
process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-73493