NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUANA FELIPE-GASPAR; et al., No. 18-72962
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A208-567-100
A208-567-101
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Juana Felipe-Gaspar and her minor son, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
their motion to terminate and dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
*
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).
under the Convention 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), and we review
questions of law de novo, Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish that any harm they suffered or fear in Guatemala was or would
be on account of 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”); 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.
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 Guatemala.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d
at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action
2 18-72962
for CAT relief).
The BIA did not err in denying petitioners’ motion to terminate proceedings.
See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to
appear need not include time and date of hearing to vest jurisdiction in the
immigration court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-72962