Ester Nohemy Arias-Portillo; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTER NOHEMY ARIAS-PORTILLO; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-479
Agency Nos.
A208-756-410
A208-756-386
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2023 **
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Ester Nohemy Arias-Portillo and her daughter, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
* 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
NOV 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-479
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”). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum claim fails. 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).
Because petitioners do not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT protection,
we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th
Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --