GERVACIA ANDRES VARGAS V. MERRICK GARLAND

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERVACIA ANDRES VARGAS; No. 20-71478 AGUSTIN DANILLO AGUSTIN ANDRES; F.E.A.A., a minor, Agency Nos. A208-123-942 A208-123-943 Petitioners, A208-123-944 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 8, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: NGUYEN and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH,*** District Judge. Gervacia Andres Vargas (“Andres Vargas”), a native and citizen of * 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). *** The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Andres Vargas’s two children are also petitioners. The children’s claims are based on the same facts and circumstances as Andres Vargas’s, and we refer to Vargas in resolving all petitioners’ claims. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s determinations for substantial evidence. Diaz-Jimenez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for review. 1. The immigration court did not lack jurisdiction over removal proceedings. Andres Vargas’s argument that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), because the Notices to Appear in this case lacked hearing times, dates, and locations is foreclosed by our precedent. United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc). 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Andres Vargas failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground because the record shows that any harm Andres Vargas experienced arose over a personal land dispute and/or a criminal motive. Andres Vargas admits that she left Guatemala and fears returning due to a dispute over land ownership with her husband’s uncle. “An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft . . . bears 2 20-71478 no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). 3. Substantial evidence supports the determination that Andres Vargas failed to show internal relocation would be unreasonable. See 8 C.F.R § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii), (b)(3). Evidence shows that Andres Vargas’s father-in-law, who was also threatened, successfully relocated within Guatemala without harm. The record does not compel a conclusion that internal relocation would be unreasonable. PETITION DENIED. 3 20-71478