NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 7 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOCELINE STEFANY ROJAS-                          No.   16-71699
NAVARRO,
                                                 Agency No. A202-006-693
                Petitioner,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Joceline Stefany Rojas-Navarro, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

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

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her

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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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.

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 

, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de

novo due process claims in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 

, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

      The BIA did not err in finding that Rojas-Navarro failed to establish

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

, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular

social 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))). Substantial evidence

supports the agency’s determination that Rojas-Navarro failed to demonstrate a

nexus between the harm she fears in El Salvador and a protected ground. See INS

v. Elias-Zacarias, 

, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some

evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 

, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment


                                           2
by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no

nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Rojas-Navarro’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims fail.

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

Rojas-Navarro failed to show that it is more likely than not she would be tortured

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

Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 

, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Rojas-Navarro’s contention that the agency violated her due process rights

fails. See Lata v. INS, 

, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to

prevail on a due process claim).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                         3