NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARIANA ORTEGA QUEVEDO; et al., No. 18-71925
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A208-310-103
A208-310-104
v. A208-310-105
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ariana Ortega Quevedo and her two minor children, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se 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
*
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”). 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.
We do not consider petitioners’ contentions as to the merits of their social
group claim of “single mother who is alone with kids in Mexico” because the BIA
did not reach that issue, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th
Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and petitioners do
not contend the BIA erred in finding that their social group claim was not properly
before it, see Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013)
(failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish that the harm they fear in Mexico has a nexus to a protected
ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must
provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”) (emphasis in
original); 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.”). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
2 18-71925
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 if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,
600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
Petitioners’ request to remand, as set forth in their opening brief, is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-71925
Ariana Ortega Quevedo v. William Barr
Combined Opinion