United States v. 2020-08-26 | 15-70217 | IRIS MORALES V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRIS DEL CARMEN MORALES,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-70217

Agency No. A098-253-359

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 24, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Iris Del Carmen Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, 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 26 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 15-70217
(“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. Morales has not challenged the IJ’s ruling
concerning her claims for asylum or cancellation of removal in the BIA or in our
court. She now seeks only withholding of removal and CAT protection.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d
876, 880 (9th Cir. 2015). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Morales failed to
establish that she would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See
Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). The record does not compel
the conclusion that the BIA erred by determining that the attacks against Morales
were opportunistic criminal acts with no nexus to a protected ground. Thus, her
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Morales failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.