Lorenza Lopez Tomas De Pedro; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LORENZA LOPEZ TOMAS DE
PEDRO; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-656
Agency Nos.
A208-605-647
A208-605-648
A208-605-649
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Lorenza Lopez Tomas de Pedro and her two minor children, natives and
citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
* 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
SEP 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-656
decision denying their applications for asylum, 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. 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. See 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).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach the remaining contentions
regarding the merits of petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims.
See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies
are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-656
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).
The record does not support petitioners’ contentions that the IJ or BIA failed
to consider evidence, ignored new jurisprudence, or otherwise erred in the analysis
of their claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(agency adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision);
see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error required to prevail
on a due process claim).
Petitioners’ contentions that the IJ failed to examine the children’s claims
from the “perspective of a child,” or that they are now eligible for voluntary
departure are not properly before the court because they were not raised before the
BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required);
see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section
1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --