Maricela Valencia Alvarez; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARICELA VALENCIA ALVAREZ; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-973
Agency Nos.
A206-267-096
A209-168-990
A206-267-097
A206-267-098
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Maricela Valencia Alvarez and her children, natives and citizens of Mexico,
petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application 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
JAN 23 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-973
asylum, and Valencia Alvarez’s applications for 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
review de novo questions of law. Id. 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 proposed
particular social group related to family. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or
circumstantial”); 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”).
Because petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determination regarding a
proposed particular social group related to small business owners, we do not
address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because Valencia Alvarez failed to establish any nexus at all, she also failed
to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,
846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-973
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Valencia Alvarez 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
Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no
likelihood of torture).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --