Yesica Carolina Canas- Machado; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YESICA CAROLINA CANAS-
MACHADO; ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-73399
Agency Nos. A208-170-739
A208-170-740
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Yesica Carolina Canas-Machado and her minor son, natives and citizens of
El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their application for asylum, and denying Canas-Machado’s applications
* 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
APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-73399
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). 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 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”). To the extent
petitioners raise a new particular social group in their opening brief, we lack
jurisdiction to consider the group because they failed to raise it before the agency.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). In light of this
disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contention regarding whether
the harm Canas-Machado suffered rose to the level of persecution. 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). We do not address
petitioners’ contentions as to credibility because the BIA did not deny relief on
those grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-73399
2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied
upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim and Canas-Machado’s withholding of
removal claim fail.
Because Canas-Machado does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT
protection, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --