Carmen Elizabet Cardona Lopez De Carrillo; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARMEN ELIZABET CARDONA LOPEZ
DE CARRILLO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1134
Agency Nos.
A208-124-673
A208-124-674
A208-124-675
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Carmen Elizabet Cardona Lopez de Carrillo and her children, natives and
citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* 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
JUL 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1134
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
review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-
92 (9th Cir. 2005). 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, including a particular social group or political opinion. 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”); 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”). Thus, petitioners’ 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, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).
Substantial evidence 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).
Petitioners’ contention that the agency erred by applying the incorrect
legal standard lacks merit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1134
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --