Luciana Tello-Sanchez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LUCIANA TELLO-SANCHEZ; No. 13-71756
ESTEBAN REYES-FLORES,
Agency Nos. A088-737-890
Petitioners, A088-737-891
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Luciana Tello-Sanchez and Esteban Reyes-Flores, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to
establish that they suffered harm or have a fear of future harm on account of a
protected ground, as opposed to a personal dispute over land. See Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a
protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s
persecution”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
Because the record supports the BIA’s finding that, even assuming indigenous
landowners are a particular social group, petitioners failed to establish a nexus
between the harm they experienced and their membership in that group, remand in
light of Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) and Henriquez-Rivas v.
Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), is unnecessary. We lack
jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ unexhausted claim that Tello-Sanchez is a
member of a particular social group consisting of police informants. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of a nexus to a
protected ground, petitioners’ withholding of removal claims fail.
2 13-71756
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to establish a likelihood of torture if they return to
Mexico. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006). Because
petitioners have not shown a likelihood of torture, we reject petitioners’ request to
remand in light of Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-71756