Blanca Chicas-De Quintanilla v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BLANCA ESTELA CHICAS-DE No. 19-72738
QUINTANILLA, et al.,
Agency Nos. A208-380-927
Petitioners, A208-380-928
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Blanca Estela Chicas-De Quintanilla and her minor daughter, 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 (“IJ”) decision
*
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).
denying their application for asylum and denying Chicas-De Quintanilla’s
application 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners failed
to establish that they 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 claim
and Chicas-De Quintanilla’s withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Chicas-De Quintanilla 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 El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 19-72738