Juana Alvarez-Salazar v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
JUANA ALVAREZ-SALAZAR, No. 10-70143
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-787-109
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2013 **
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Juana Alvarez-Salazar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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 determination that Alvarez-
Salazar failed to establish that she was or would be persecuted on account of any
protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[a]n alien’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,
in the absence of nexus to a protected ground, Alvarez-Salazar’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. Because Alvarez-Salazar failed to establish
past persecution on account of a protected ground, her claim for humanitarian
asylum necessarily fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Alvarez-
Salazar failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be tortured with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Alvarez-
Salazar’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.