Rhina Margarita Torres-De- Argueta; Karla Margarita Argueta-Torres v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RHINA MARGARITA TORRES-DE-
ARGUETA; KARLA MARGARITA
ARGUETA-TORRES,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73586
Agency Nos. A206-849-219
A206-849-220
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2022 **
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Rhina Margarita Torres-De-Argueta and Karla Margarita Argueta-Torres,
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
* 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
JUN 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-73586
decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th
Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish they were or would be persecuted on account of a political
opinion or their membership in a particular social group. See Ayala v. Holder, 640
F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is
established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on
account of his membership in such group”); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856
(9th Cir. 2009) (political opinion claim rejected where petitioner did not present
sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition to the gang’s ideals or that
the gang imputed a particular political belief to the petitioner); see also 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”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the new particular social groups raised in
the opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-73586
contentions as to their asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --