NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA GABRIELA VIDRIO ESPINOZA, et No. 18-70772
al.,
Agency Nos. A206-498-501
Petitioners, A206-498-502
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Ana Gabriela Vidrio Espinoza and her daughter, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition 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
*
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. 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 the harm
petitioners suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224
F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute past
persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so
menacing as to cause significant actual ‘suffering or harm’”); see also Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (no past persecution where harm to
others was not part of “a pattern of persecution closely tied to” petitioner) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Petitioners fear harm in Mexico because of their membership in the
particular social groups of the immediate family of Vidrio Espinoza’s husband and
as family members of a murder or kidnapping victim. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish that any
harm they fear in Mexico 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
2 18-70772
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) (“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”); see also
Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that a claim of future
persecution can be weakened or undercut when family members or similarly
situated individuals live in the country without harm), superseded by statute on
other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2007).
Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to challenge the agency’s denial of
withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d
1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to withholding of
removal and CAT relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-70772