Vania Polidur v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VANIA POLIDUR,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71436
Agency No. A208-924-161
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Vania Polidur, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* 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
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71436
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence,
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Polidur failed to
establish that the harm she experienced or fears in Haiti was or would be on
account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483
(1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or
circumstantial”) (emphasis in original); 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, her asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Polidur failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be tortured in Haiti.
See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --