facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition for review.

1. An asylum “applicant must demonstrate a nexus between her past or

feared harm and a protected ground.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143

(9th Cir. 2021). “Specifically, the protected characteristic must be ‘a central

reason’ for the past or feared harm.” Id. (citation omitted).

Betancourt sought asylum on account of her membership in five proposed

particular social groups: (1) unemployed Mexican women; (2) Mexican women

who were targeted for kidnapping; (3) Mexican migrant women; (4) Mexican

women; and (5) Mexican women of working age.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Betancourt failed

to establish a nexus between any past or feared harm and her proposed particular

2 23-359 social groups. Betancourt primarily relies on her attempted kidnapping by

criminals pretending to offer jobs at a Walmart store near her home in Mexico.

However, Betancourt stated that she did not know why she was targeted and that

the criminals attempted to kidnap both men and women. See Zetino v. Holder, 622

F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (A non-citizen’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 substantial evidence supports the BIA’s nexus determination, we do

not reach any other ground for Betancourt’s asylum claim.

2. While the nexus standard for withholding of removal is less demanding

than for asylum, there is no distinction when there is “no nexus at all.” Barajas-

Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). Because substantial evidence

supports that there was no nexus at all, we also uphold the BIA’s denial of

Betancourt’s withholding of removal claim.

3. Regarding her CAT claim, substantial evidence supports that Betancourt

failed to show that she will more likely than not be tortured by or with the

acquiescence of government officials if removed to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R.

§§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1); Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th

Cir. 2016) (“[A] general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate

and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”).

3 23-359 4. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION DENIED.

4 23-359