Ana Patricia Flores De Guadron v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA PATRICIA FLORES DE GUADRON
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70798
Agency Nos. A209-846-452
A209-846-453
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Ana Patricia Flores de Guadron and her daughter, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, and denying Flores de Guadron’s applications for
* 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
APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-70798
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
findings for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241
(9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners failed
to establish the harm Flores de Guadron experienced or fears in El Salvador would
be on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097
(9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an
applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his
membership in such group”); 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, petitioners’ asylum claim and Flores de Guadron’s withholding of removal
claim fail.
We do not address Flores de Guadron’s contentions regarding the
cognizability of her proposed particular social group because the BIA did not deny
relief on that ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds
relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-70798
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because Flores
de Guadron failed to show it is more likely than not she would 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --