Cesar Vladimir Guzman- Quintanilla; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR VLADIMIR GUZMAN-
QUINTANILLA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73780
Agency Nos. A206-773-832
A206-773-833
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Cesar Vladimir Guzman-Quintanilla and his minor sister, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
* 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 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-73780
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish the harm they fear 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”); 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”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief 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 El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contentions that the BIA
violated their due process rights by using its streamlining procedures or by failing
to explain its reasoning.
1 Petitioners each filed their own applications for relief.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-73780
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --