Maria Machic Lopez De Sanchez; Mayri Katherine Sanchez-Machic v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA MACHIC LOPEZ DE
SANCHEZ; MAYRI KATHERINE
SANCHEZ-MACHIC,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1412
Agency Nos.
A216-578-164
A216-578-165
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 6, 2023**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Maria Martha Machic-Lopez de Sanchez and her minor daughter M.S.M.,
natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision 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).
FILED
JUN 9 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Petitioner’s application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”).1 We have 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 she experienced, or
fears in Guatemala, and a protected ground. While Petitioner provided evidence
that she was robbed several times, including once when she was with M.S.M.,
she pointed to no evidence compelling the conclusion that those incidents 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 harassment by
criminals motivated by theft . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground”). We
therefore deny the petition as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims.2
See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The lack of a
nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of his asylum and withholding of
removal claims.”).
1 Because M.S.M. is a derivative applicant on her mother’s application
for relief, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A), and she did not file her own
application, we focus on her mother’s application in this memorandum
disposition. See Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 99, 1001 n.1 (9th Cir. 2001).
2 We do not consider Petitioner’s additional arguments, because the lack
of nexus is dispositive and our review is limited to the grounds the BIA relied
upon. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating general rule
that courts and agencies are not required to make findings on nondispositive
issues); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining
that this court’s review is limited to the grounds upon which the BIA relied).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2. Regarding Petitioner’s application for CAT protection, 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 she 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). Petitioner’s brief attributes
the harm she experienced to the “narco-cartel,” or “narco-terrorists” and argues
that country conditions evidence indicates that the “narco-cartels are acting with
[the] consent and acquiescence of government authorities.” Petitioner, however,
fails to cite any record evidence indicating that she was harmed by the “narco-
cartel,” and the record indicates that she did not know who the perpetrators were
or if they belonged to a gang.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --