Lucia Del Carmen Sanchez- Ayala; v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUCIA DEL CARMEN SANCHEZ-
AYALA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71612
Agency Nos. A206-759-782
A206-759-782
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Lucia Del Carmen Sanchez-Ayala and her daughter, natives and citizens of
El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
* 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
FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-71612
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 conclusion that Sanchez-Ayala
failed to establish she was or would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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, in the
absence of a nexus to a protected ground, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See id.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Sanchez-Ayala failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured
by the government of El Salvador, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Garcia-
Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --