NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 13 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTORIA MARTIN-PEREZ; et al.,                  No.    17-73342

                Petitioners,                    Agency Nos.       A202-013-136
                                                                  A202-013-137
 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,              MEMORANDUM*

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before:      WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

      Victoria Martin-Perez and her son, natives and citizens of Guatemala,

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

their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture



      *
             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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 

, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except

to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing

statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 

, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).

We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 

, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review.

      The BIA did not err in finding that petitioners did not establish membership

in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 

, 1131 (9th Cir.

2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant

must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common

immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct

within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227,

237 (BIA 2014))). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention as to

their Mam ethnicity as a particular social group because they failed to raise the

claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 

, 677-78 (9th Cir.

2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners otherwise

failed to establish they were or would be persecuted on account of a protected

ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 

, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s


                                          2                                    17-73342
“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,

petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

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

Martin-Perez failed to show it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See

Aden v. Holder, 

, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia-Milian v.

Holder, 

, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not

establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.




                                          3                                    17-73342