Santiago Alvarez-Barrios v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTIAGO ABISAI ALVAREZ- No. 16-73584
BARRIOS; et al.,
Agency Nos. A202-002-083
Petitioners, A202-002-084
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Santiago Abisai Alvarez-Barrios and his minor son, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, and denying Alvarez-Barrios’s application for withholding
*
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).
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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish that the harm they experienced or fear was or would be on
account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.
2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant
must show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such
group”); 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”); Sagaydak v.
Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To establish a nexus to the
political opinion ground, the [petitioners] must show (1) that [they] had either an
affirmative or imputed political opinion, and (2) that they were targeted on account
of that opinion.”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and Alvarez-Barrios’s withholding of
removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Alvarez-Barrios failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.
2 16-73584
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.
3 16-73584