Laura Elena Espinoza Sepulveda; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAURA ELENA ESPINOZA
SEPULVEDA; ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72939
Agency Nos. A200-291-844
A202-179-301
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Laura Elena Espinoza Sepulveda and her minor son, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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
JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72939
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
Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute,
standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground).
Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
To the extent petitioners raise a new proposed particular social group based
on family members who cannot leave their relationship in their opening brief, we
lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th
Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72939
We lack jurisdiction to consider the contention that the IJ violated
petitioners’ right to due process. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --