NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTHA PATRICIA PIMENTEL ORTIZ; No. 18-73288 et al.,

Agency Nos. A208-602-133

Petitioners, A208-602-134

A208-602-135 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Martha Patricia Pimentel Ortiz, and her two minor children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under

*

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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish that their past experiences in Mexico rose to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish that any harm they fear in Mexico would be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial” (emphasis in original)); see also 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.”). In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they

2 18-73288 reach). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 18-73288