Melva Galindo-Montepeque v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 439 F. App'x 641 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELVA ARACELY GALINDO- No. 09-71612
MONTEPEQUE and RAUL ESTUARDO
GALINDO-REYNA, Agency No. A098-347-341
A 098-347-282
Petitioners,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Melva Aracely Galindo-Montepeque, and her son Raul Estuardo Galindo
Reyna, whose petition is derivative, are natives and citizens of Guatemala, and they
petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals,
*
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).
dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of their applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”).
Galindo-Montepeque contends that the BIA erred in denying her asylum and
withholding applications because she established past persecution through the
cumulative incidents of theft and violence by gang members against her, and
because of her membership in a social group comprised of single-parent families.
Galindo-Montepeque also contends that she was entitled to relief under CAT
because gang members acted with the acquiescence of the Guatemalan
government.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Galindo-
Montepeque failed to establish that she was targeted because of her membership in
any social group, and failed to establish a nexus to any other 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.”) Because Galindo-Montepeque
did not establish a nexus to a protected ground, her asylum claim fails. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992). Because petitioner did not establish
eligibility for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard
2 09-71612
for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th
Cir. 2006). Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of
petitioner’s request for CAT relief because Galindo-Montepeque failed to show
that it was more likely than not that she will be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-71612