NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
ROSA DEL CARMEN GUIDO-ROSALES; No. 17-71350
et al.,
Agency Nos. A202-006-496
Petitioners, A202-006-497
A208-685-170
v. A208-685-171
A208-685-172
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rosa del Carmen Guido-Rosales, her common-law husband, and three minor
children, all 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 (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and relief under the Convention 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, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners failed
to establish a 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 ground.”); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir.
2008) (evidence supported conclusion that gang victimized petitioner for economic
and personal reasons rather than on account of a protected ground), abrogated on
other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013)
(en banc). Thus, their asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ particular social group of family
because they failed to raise this claim before the IJ. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency).
We do not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions concerning their
2 17-71350
eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal because the BIA did not reach
them. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)
(“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon
by that agency.”).
Substantial evidence 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
with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Garcia-
Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the
necessary “state action” for CAT relief).
Petitioners’ opposed motion for summary grant of the petition for review
(Docket Entry No. 25) is denied. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-
62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and date
information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 17-71350