NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TANIA TERESA BAEZ CAMACHO; et No. 16-70101
al.,
Agency Nos. A206-498-705
Petitioners, A206-498-681
A206-498-706
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Tania Teresa Baez Camacho and her family, 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 applications 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 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.
The agency did not err in determining that petitioners’ proposed particular
social group of “small business owners of perceived wealth” is not cognizable. See
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The applicant must
‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common
immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct
within the society in question’” (citation omitted)); see also Ochoa v. Gonzales,
406 F.3d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 2005) (a group of “business owners” did not
constitute a particular social group), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-
Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to
establish a nexus between the harm they experienced and fear, and a family-based
particular social group. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see
2 16-70101
also 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 relief because
petitioners failed to show that 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
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative).
We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contentions that the
agency violated their due process rights or otherwise erred in its analysis of their
claims.
As stated in the court’s March 30, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-70101