Jose Alfredo Canas-Coreas; Sofia Melany Canas-Coreas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALFREDO CANAS-COREAS;
SOFIA MELANY CANAS-COREAS,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71103
Agency Nos. A208-538-261
A208-538-267
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alfredo Canas-Coreas and Sofia Melany Canas-Coreas, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
* 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
SEP 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-71103
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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 the harm they experienced or fear was or would be on account of
a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”);
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 and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. 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.

-- 2 of 2 --