NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZELAIDA CRISTINA MEDRANO- No. 16-70752
GUARDADO; JUSTIN ALEXANDER DE
LEON-MEDRANO, A Juvenile Male, Agency Nos. A206-779-358
A206-779-359
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges
Zelaida Cristina Medrano-Guardado and her minor son (together,
“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Petitioners’ appeal from an
*
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).
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Petitioners’ application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of
law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent
that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and
regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). 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.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Petitioners’ asylum claim.
Petitioners have not experienced past persecution, and while their family and
friends have suffered violence, Petitioners fail to show that this violence was “part
of ‘a pattern of persecution closely tied to’” Petitioners. Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Arriega-Barreintos v. I.N.S., 937 F.2d
411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991)). Petitioners claim they will suffer violence at the hands
of gangs in El Salvador, but their general fear of violent conditions is insufficient
to support a claim for asylum. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by
theft or random violence . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground”). To the extent
Petitioners claim they will be persecuted on account of their family membership,
they present no evidence indicating that the violence they fear will be motivated by
2
their membership in this group. See id. To the extent Petitioners claim they will
be persecuted on account of social condition of “kleptocracy,” they also fail to
connect this fear to any protected ground. See id. Our conclusion is not affected
by the differing nexus standards applicable to asylum and withholding of removal
claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017)
(discussing Zetino v. Holder having drawn no distinction between the standards
where there was no nexus at all to a protected ground).
Petitioners do not challenge the BIAs’ determination that their other
proposed social groups, “Salvadoran returnees perceived to be wealthy” and
“potential victims of criminal organizations without the means to provide
protection from the criminal organizations,” are insufficiently particular or socially
distinct to qualify as social groups. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived). To the extent they argue they will suffer persecution on
account of a “political opinion,” their argument is unsupported by the record.
Because Petitioners cannot demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution to support their asylum claim, their withholding of removal
claim likewise fails. Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2016)
(“A petitioner who fails to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum necessarily
fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.”).
3
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4