Nelson Rivera-Navarro v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 7 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON EDENILSON RIVERA- No. 16-71450
NAVARRO; JIMMY ABRAHAM
RIVERA-CANEGUS, Agency Nos. A206-731-383
A206-731-382
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2020**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Nelson Edenilson Rivera-Navarro and Jimmy Abraham Rivera-Canegus,
natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de
novo due process claims in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d
733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish that 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”); see also INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some
evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show that it is more likely than not they would 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).
Petitioners’ contentions that the agency violated their due process rights fail.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2