Navarro-Guardado v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 23, 2023
• Docket: 22-68
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WENDY YESSENIA NAVARRO- No. 22-68 GUARDADO; JERSON NEHEMIAS Agency Nos. NAVARRO-GUARDADO, A208-757-503 A208-757-504 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Wendy Yessenia Navarro-Guardado and Jerson Nehemias Navarro-

Guardado, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition pro se for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an

* 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). immigration judge’s decision 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. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.

2020). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to establish they were or would be persecuted 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”); Pagayon v.

Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone,

does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground). Thus,

petitioners’ asylum claims fail. Because petitioners failed to establish any nexus at

all, they also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).

We do not consider petitioners’ claims as to the proposed particular social

group of “families with young men and women” because the BIA did not decide

the issue, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)

(review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and petitioners do not

contend the BIA erred in finding that their particular social group claim was not

2 22-68 properly before it, see Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.

2013).

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 Honduras.

See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of

torture).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 22-68