NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 19 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELICITAS BARRAZA-PEREZ; et al., No. 14-73348
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A201-275-588
A201-275-579
v. A201-275-569
A201-275-571
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Felicitas Barraza-Perez, Luis Enrique Gradilla-Arevalo, Luis Manuel
Gradilla-Gomez, and Yuliza Guadalupe Gradilla-Gomez (“Petitioners”), natives
and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeals from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
*
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).
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The BIA summarily affirmed
the IJ’s decision under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4), so we review the IJ’s decision as
the final agency action. Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 2014).
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 agency’s conclusion that Petitioners failed
to establish they would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. Although
their testimony was credible and sincere, the respondents do not know who was
threatening them or why they were being threatened. They can only speculate that
the threats had something to do with their murdered grandfather’s involvement in
drug trafficking. 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”). Thus,
Petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
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 Mexico. See
2 14-73348
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73348