United States v. 2020-02-06 | 19-71475 | XIOMARA OVIEDO CERON V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIOMARA L. OVIEDO CERON; et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71475

Agency Nos. A208-457-090
A208-457-091

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2020
**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Xiomara L. Oviedo Ceron and her minor son, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

*
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

FEB 6 2020

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

2 19-71475
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
We reject petitioners’ contentions as to streamlining because the BIA did not
streamline their case.
To the extent petitioners assert they are members of the class identified in
Rojas v. Johnson, 305 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (W.D. Wash. 2018), the record indicates
the agency made a determination as to the merits of their asylum application.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish that the harm they suffered or fear in El Salvador was or would
be 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”); 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 and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Oviedo Ceron failed to show it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (claims of
possible torture speculative); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,

3 19-71475
1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in petitioner’s
home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.