NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARACELI OCHOA ALCARAZ; et al., No. 18-71861
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A205-666-580
A208-309-363
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Araceli Ochoa Alcaraz and her daughter, natives and citizens of Mexico,
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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners claimed fear of future harm based on their membership in the
social group of “individuals who have reported organized criminal activity to the
police in Mexico.” Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
petitioners failed to establish membership in that social group. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863
F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (applicant must establish persecution on account
of one of the “statutorily protected grounds”).
Petitioners also claimed past harm and fear future harm based on their
family membership. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination
that petitioners failed to establish that the past harm they experienced or future
harm that they fear in Mexico has 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.”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640
F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is
2 18-71861
established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on
account of his membership in such group” (emphasis in original)). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence 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. See Aden v. Holder, 589
F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contentions that the BIA
violated their due process rights and did not apply the proper legal standard to their
claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-71861