Jenny Marisol Vasquez-Flores; Hersson Walmir Cortez-Gomez; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JENNY MARISOL VASQUEZ-FLORES;
HERSSON WALMIR CORTEZ-GOMEZ; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70585
Agency Nos. A208-541-052
A208-541-053
A208-541-054
A208-542-012
A208-542-013
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Jenny Marisol Vasquez-Flores, Hersson Walmir Cortez-Gomez, and their
three minor children, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from
* 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 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70585
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum, and
denying Vasquez-Flores’s and Cortez-Gomez’s applications for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part 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”); see also
Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir. 2009) (“resistance to gang
membership is not a protected ground”).
We do not consider petitioners’ proposed particular social group of
“Salvadorans who have reported criminal activity of the MS-13 to the police”
because the BIA did not decide the issue, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657
F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA),
and petitioners do not contend the BIA erred in finding that their particular social
group claim was not properly before it, see Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d
1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70585
waiver).
We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to whether they established
past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution because the BIA did
not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez, 657 F.3d at 829.
Therefore, petitioners’ asylum claims, and Vasquez-Flores’s and Cortez-
Gomez’s withholding of removal claims fail.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Vasquez-Flores’s and Cortez-Gomez’s
contentions as to CAT protection where the BIA found petitioners waived any
challenge as to CAT. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
To the extent petitioners claim that the IJ violated their due process rights or
otherwise erred in its analysis, we lack jurisdiction to consider the contention
because they failed to raise it before the BIA. See id.
We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in their opening brief
that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-
64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --