NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONATHAN ADALBERTO MANCIA- No. 17-73424
GALDAMEZ; et al.,
Agency Nos. A202-121-303
Petitioners, A202-121-304
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Yonathan Adalberto Mancia-Galdamez and his son, natives and citizens of
El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the new particular social group that
petitioners raise for the first time in their opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the threats
Mancia-Galdamez’s girlfriend and his uncle received from gang members in El
Salvador 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’.”). Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that the harm petitioners fear in El Salvador has no nexus
to a protected ground. See 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
2 17-73424
ground.”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject petitioners’ contentions that the agency applied the wrong legal
standard or that the agency failed to consider all the evidence.
We deny petitioners’ request, included in their opening brief, to remand.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 17-73424