NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN ANDRES CRUZ-MEDRANO; et No. 16-71711
al.,
Agency Nos. A206-842-398
Petitioners, A206-842-399
A206-842-400
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Andres Cruz-Medrano, Julio Andres Cruz-Cruz, and Silvia Sarai
Cruz-Cruz, natives and citizens of El Salvador, 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,
*
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).
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 Our jurisdiction is
governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that petitioners failed to
establish that the harm they experienced or fear was or would be on account of on
account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.
2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant
must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in
such group”); 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”). We
lack jurisdiction to consider the imputed political opinion claims petitioners assert
for the first time in their opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-
78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the
agency). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
1
Petitioners Cruz-Medrano and his son, Cruz-Cruz, each submitted their own
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT. Both of Cruz-
Medrano’s children are included as derivatives of Cruz-Medrano’s asylum
application.
2 16-71711
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they would 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-71711
Edwin Cruz-Medrano v. Merrick Garland
Combined Opinion