Rubia Lisett Funes Alvarado; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBIA LISETT FUNES ALVARADO; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-165
Agency Nos.
A215-637-005
A215-637-006
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rubia Lisett Funes Alvarado and her minor child, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
* 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
MAR 1 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-165
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“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 Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The
applicant must demonstrate a nexus between her past or feared harm and a
protected ground.” (citation omitted)); 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”). We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to the
cognizability of their proposed particular social groups because the BIA did not
deny relief on these grounds. 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)). Thus, their asylum claims fail.
Because petitioners failed to establish any nexus at all, they also failed to
satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-165
846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
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 Guatemala.
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 --