ANA MARIA RIVAS DE TAMACAS and ROBERTO IVAN TAMACAS PORTILLO v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA MARIA RIVAS DE TAMACAS
and ROBERTO IVAN TAMACAS
PORTILLO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70351
Agency Nos. A098-952-565
A098-952-566
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 16, 2014
Seattle, Washington
Before: REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE, District
Judge.**
FILED
JUN 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Ana Maria Rivas de Tamacas and Roberto Ivan Tamacas Portillo, natives
and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to
meet their burden of showing they suffered past persecution on account of
membership in a particular social group. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095,
1097–98 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Likewise, the petitioners failed to
demonstrate an objective well-founded fear of future persecution. See Arriaga-
Barrientos v. U.S.I.N.S., 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991) (petitioner must
establish a pattern of persecution closely tied to petitioner to establish a well-
founded fear). Petitioners were not personally harmed or personally threatened,
there is no persuasive evidence that the killings of their family members were
efforts to harm or attack petitioners emotionally, and there is no persuasive
evidence that the killings were motivated by family membership.
The BIA’s finding with regard to imputed political opinion is also supported
by substantial evidence. The motive of the assailants is unknown and it was
2

-- 2 of 3 --

reasonable to conclude that the incidents were random acts of violence. See
Ochave v. I.N.S., 254 F.3d 859, 866 (9th Cir. 2001).
Because petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to show they were
eligible for asylum, they necessarily failed to make the more stringent showing that
they were eligible for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Petitioners did not make any argument regarding the BIA’s denial of CAT
relief in their opening brief. Therefore their CAT claim is waived. See Martinez-
Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --