NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLENDA SUYAPA FLORES YANES, No. 22-255 Agency No. Petitioner, A202-128-875 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 11, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE, BENNETT, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Glenda Suyapa Flores-Yanes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing an appeal

from the denial by an immigration judge (“IJ”) of her applications for asylum,

* 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). withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

. We review the BIA’s denials

for substantial evidence. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr,

(9th Cir.

2019). We “must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a

contrary conclusion.”

We deny the petition.

1. The BIA denied Flores-Yanes’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims because she failed to establish a nexus between her protected ground and any

past or future harm. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. Flores-Yanes

failed to show that the perpetrators were motivated by her family-based proposed

social group. Indeed, Flores-Yanes testified that she did not know why she was being

targeted or who was targeting her. See Ochave v. I.N.S.,

(9th Cir.

2001); Zetino v. Holder,

(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a

petitioner’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”). We thus

deny the petition as to Flores-Yanes’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.

2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Flores-

Yanes is ineligible for CAT relief. To qualify for CAT relief, an applicant must prove

that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of

the government if removed.

(c)(2). The record does not compel

the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the Honduran government would

2 22-255 acquiesce in Flores-Yanes’s torture. To the contrary, the record shows that the police

investigated her partner’s death and attempted to locate the perpetrators who

threatened her. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder,

(9th Cir. 2014)

(holding that even when the government’s “steps have not achieved the desired goals

of resolving crimes and protecting citizens, they support the BIA’s determination

that the government is not wilfully [sic] blind”). Flores-Yanes relied exclusively on

generalized country reports to establish government acquiescence, but that alone is

insufficient to compel a finding of government acquiescence in light of the other

evidence showing that the government investigated her partner’s death and

attempted to locate the perpetrators who threatened her. See Andrade-Garcia v.

Lynch,

(9th Cir. 2016) (finding that “inability to bring the

criminals to justice” and “general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to

investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence”). We therefore

deny the petition as to Flores-Yanes’s CAT claim.

PETITION DENIED.

3 22-255