Elsa Marina Calderon; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELSA MARINA CALDERON; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-999
Agency Nos.
A209-399-948
A209-399-949
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Elsa Marina Calderon and her son, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without
opinion an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
AUG 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-999
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 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 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must
provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”). Thus, petitioners’
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
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 Honduras.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioners’ contention
that the agency applied the incorrect CAT standard is not properly before the court
because they failed to raise it before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)
(exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v.
Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1113-14 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-
jurisdictional claim-processing rule).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --