Ana Edith Perez-Vides; v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA EDITH PEREZ-VIDES; et al,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71320
Agency Nos. A208-271-052
A208-271-053
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ana Edith Perez-Vides and her daughter, natives and citizens of El Salvador,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application 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
* 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
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-71320
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 a nexus between the harm they suffered or fear and 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,
petitioners’ asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case,
they did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to establish that it is more likely than not that they will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador.
See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized
evidence of violence and crime was not particular to petitioner and insufficient to
establish CAT eligibility).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --