Opinion
20-71103
09-16-2021
JOSE ALFREDO CANAS-COREAS; SOFIA MELANY CANAS-COREAS, Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted September 14, 2021 [**]
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A208-538-261 A208-538-267
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Jose Alfredo Canas-Coreas and Sofia Melany Canas-Coreas, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se 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 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 determination that petitioners failed to establish the harm they experienced or fear was or would be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant "must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial"); 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 and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. [*] 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).