Amilcar Osiel Miranda Sales v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMILCAR OSIEL MIRANDA SALES,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70136
Agency No. A200-246-828
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Amilcar Osiel Miranda Sales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70136
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm Sales
suffered in Guatemala did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani v.
Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel the
conclusion that petitioner’s past harm constituted persecution). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that, even if Sales’s family is a
cognizable social group, Sales failed to establish that the harm he fears 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); see also 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, Sales’s asylum claim fail.
In this case, because Sales failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed
to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70136
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Sales failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder,
589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1033-35 (2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state
action” for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --