NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVELYN NINETH MORAN-ALVAREZ, No. 22-716 Agency No. Petitioner, A209-234-395 v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Evelyn Nineth Moran-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing

her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

* 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). 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.

Because Moran-Alvarez does not contest the BIA’s determination that she

failed to the challenge the IJ’s finding that she did not experience harm rising to

the level of persecution, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706

F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s

conclusion that Moran-Alvarez failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future

persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility

of future persecution “too speculative”). Because Moran-Alvarez failed to

establish eligibility for asylum, she failed to establish eligibility for withholding of

removal. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021).

Thus, Moran-Alvarez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Moran-Alvarez failed to show it is more likely than not she will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of

torture).

2 22-716 Moran-Alvarez’s request for remand based on the IJ’s citation to Matter of

A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (AG 2018) is denied. See Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th

965, 979 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Where the BIA conducts a de novo review, any error

committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the BIA’s application of the

correct legal standard”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 22-716