Evelyn Alicia Angel-Bonilla; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EVELYN ALICIA ANGEL-BONILLA; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-322
Agency Nos.
A212-974-934
A212-974-935
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Evelyn Alicia Angel-Bonilla and her minor son, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-322
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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.
Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they
failed to challenge the IJ’s conclusion that their proposed particular social group
was not cognizable, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706
F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). 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”); 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 claim fails. 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 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 El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-322
petitioners’ contention as to the applicability of a lower “standard of proof” for
CAT protection.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --