NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES AMAYA- No. 16-72516 CRUZ; et al., Agency Nos. A206-845-953 Petitioners, A206-845-954

A206-845-955

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Maria De Los Angeles Amaya-Cruz and her two sons, 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 Amaya-Cruz’s application for

* 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). withholding of removal and relief 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 deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to establish that the harm they experienced or fear in El Salvador 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 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”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim and Amaya-Cruz’s withholding of

removal claim fail.

In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining

contentions regarding 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).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Amaya-Cruz failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or

2 16-72516 with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 16-72516