Saul Gustavo Carbajal Guevara; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAUL GUSTAVO CARBAJAL
GUEVARA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-608
Agency Nos.
A208-568-307
A209-001-626
A209-001-627
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 12, 2023**
Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Saul Gustavo Carbajal Guevara, Rosalba Yamileth Mendoza de Carbajal,
and their minor child, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from
* 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).
FILED
DEC 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-608
an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, and
denying Carbajal Guevara and Mendoza de Carbajal’s applications for withholding
of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
BIA’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.
2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Carbajal Guevara failed
to establish he was 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”). Thus, Carbajal Guevara’s
asylum claim fails. Because Carbajal Guevara failed to establish any nexus at all,
he also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-
Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).
Because Mendoza de Carbajal does not challenge the dispositive adverse
credibility determination, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706
F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). In the absence of credible testimony, in this
case, Mendoza de Carbajal’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348, F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Mendoza de Carbajal and Carbajal Guevera failed to establish

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-608
eligibility for asylum, their derivative child’s asylum claim also fails.
Because Mendoza de Carbajal and Carbajal Guevera do not challenge the
denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at
1079-80.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --