Dora Acevedo-Rivera v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DORA ACEVEDO-RIVERA; JENNIFER
RIVERA-ACEVEDO; ZAIRA
GUADALUPE RIVERA-ACEVEDO;
OSCAR ALEXIS RIVERA-ACEVEDO,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70086
Agency Nos. A202-077-834
A202-077-835
A202-077-836
A202-077-837
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.
Dora Acevedo-Rivera and her children, 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
* 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 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-70086
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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. Conde
Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo
constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
We do not disturb the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to
establish they suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Mendez-
Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (unspecified threats
were insufficient to rise to the level of persecution); see also Flores Molina v.
Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve whether de
novo or substantial evidence review applies, where result would be the same under
either standard). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
petitioners failed to establish they 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”).
Because petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determination that a
proposed particular social group based on being victims of extortion was not
cognizable, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-70086
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
We also do not address the agency’s denial of CAT protection. See id.
Petitioners’ claim that the BIA violated due process by issuing a summary
dismissal fails as unsupported by the record. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770
F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner
must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).
Petitioners forfeited any challenge to the denial of voluntary departure. See
Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --