NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 1 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRANDON ELIAS PEREZ-CARDONA, No. 18-72094
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-980-094
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 1, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Brandon Elias Perez-Cardona, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding
the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioner
failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in
Guatemala and a protected ground. Although Petitioner provided evidence that he
was beat up by gang members on two occasions, he offered no evidence that those
attacks were related to a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that an applicant’s “desire to be free from . . .
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). We
therefore deny the petition as to the asylum and withholding claims. See Garcia v.
Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that an applicant for
asylum “must demonstrate a nexus between her past or feared harm and a protected
ground”); Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 7 F.4th 888, 892 (9th Cir. 2021) (“To
qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show that ‘it is more likely
than not that’ he would be persecuted because of a protected ground.” (quoting INS
v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424 (1984)).
2. Regarding Petitioner’s application for relief under the CAT, substantial
evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion, adopted by the BIA, that Petitioner
failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with
the acquiescence of a public official if returned to Guatemala. See Xochihua-
Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).
2
PETITION DENIED.
3