NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MARVIN VASQUEZ-AREVALO; No. 16-74030
LISSETH DEL CARMEN ORTIZ-DE 18-71132
VASQUEZ; et al.,
Agency Nos. A206-836-295
Petitioners, A206-800-183
A206-800-182
v. A206-836-312
A206-800-279
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Marvin Vasquez-Arevalo, Lisseth Del Carmen Ortiz-de-Vasquez, and
their three minor children, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ orders dismissing their appeals from
an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We consolidate the petitions for review in Nos. 16-74030 and 18-71132. 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 deny the petitions for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish that the harm they experienced or fear in El Salvador was or
would be on account of a protected ground. 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.”); see also Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052
(9th Cir. 2001) (harm based on personal retribution is not persecution on account
of a protected ground); Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a
personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution based on a
protected ground). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claims fail.
In this case, because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 16-74030
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-74030