                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 23 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CATARINO VARELA-SANTOS; et al.,                  No.   15-73359

                Petitioners,                     Agency Nos.      A206-763-992
                                                                  A206-763-993
 v.                                                               A206-763-994
                                                                  A206-763-995
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,                                A206-763-996

                Respondent.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*

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

                               Submitted August 7, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges

      Catarino Varela-Santos, Ana Cecilia Gutierrez-De Varela, and their three

children (together, “Petitioners”), all of whom are natives and citizens of El

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

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their



      *
             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).
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”).

      Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 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, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).

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

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Petitioners’ asylum and

withholding of removal claims. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

conclusion that Petitioners did not suffer threats or any physical harm rising to the

level of past persecution. See Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000).

The BIA did not err in finding that Petitioners did not establish membership in a

cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 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))). Petitioners argue they fear persecution on account of a political


                                          2
opinion or their membership in a social group composed of their family, but these

claims were not raised before the BIA, so we lack jurisdiction to review them. See

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 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 would be

persecuted 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”).

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

Petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or 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).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.




                                          3
