RAFAEL REYNA ROSAS, AKA Jorge Ortiz Pinedo; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL REYNA ROSAS, AKA Jorge
Ortiz Pinedo; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72636
Agency Nos. A074-324-974
A202-175-811
A202-175-812
A202-175-813
A202-175-814
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Reyna Rosas, Erika Suazo Fombona, and three of their children,
natives and citizens of Mexico, 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 relief
* 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
JAN 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-72636
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 the harm they experienced or fear in Mexico was or would be 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”);
see also Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1031 (“In order to reverse the BIA, we must
determine ‘that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but
compels it’”). We reject as unsupported by the record Petitioners’ contention that
the agency failed to fully address their arguments and evidence. Thus, Petitioners’
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Petitioners did not establish that it is more likely than not they would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-72636
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --