NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALMELINA CUYUCH AS; ALISON 

ROJAS CUYUCH,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 23-957

Agency Nos.

A215-561-117

A215-561-118

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 14, 2024**

Pasadena, California

Before: GILMAN***, N.R. SMITH, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

Almelina Cuyuch As, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review 

* 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 Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for 

the Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAY 16 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-957

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming without opinion an 

Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) order denying her application for asylum, withholding 

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum based on 

its determination that Cuyuch As failed to establish a nexus between past or future 

persecution and a protected ground. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142-

43 (9th Cir. 2021). Cuyuch As alleges that she was persecuted on account of her 

membership in the social group “business owners in Guatemala.”2 However, the 

agency determined that the assailants were solely motivated by a desire to obtain 

money. Cuyuch As points to nothing in the record indicating that her assailants 

were aware of her status as a business owner. The record therefore does not compel 

the conclusion that there was a nexus between the harm Cuyuch As suffered and 

1 Cuyuch As’s minor daughter, Alison Rojas Cuyuch, is a derivative beneficiary on 

this petition.

2 Cuyuch As also alleged a “nuclear family” social group before the IJ. However, 

she did not challenge the IJ’s denial of this proposed group before the BIA. Thus, 

that claim is unexhausted and, because the government raised the exhaustion 

requirement in this case, we must enforce it. See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 

U.S. 411, 413 (2023) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement 

is not jurisdictional, but a claim-processing rule subject to waiver and forfeiture); 

see also Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1849 (2019) (noting that claimprocessing rules “may be mandatory in the sense that a court must enforce the rule 

if a party properly raises it”) (cleaned up).
3 23-957

her membership in a protected group.3 See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 

1026, 1032–33 (9th Cir. 2014) (upholding the BIA’s denial of asylum where the 

petitioner “failed to identify [direct or] circumstantial evidence in the record 

raising a compelling inference” that her persecutors targeted her on account of a 

protected ground). Accordingly, Cuyuch As did not establish eligibility for asylum. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).

2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision to deny 

withholding of removal. Cuyuch As’s fear of harm stems from generalized crime 

and violence in Guatemala, which does not establish a nexus to a protected ground. 

See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that 

random criminal acts bear no nexus to a protected ground). Accordingly, Cuyuch 

As did not satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. 

Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359–60 (9th Cir. 2017).

3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief,

because Cuyuch As did not allege harm or threats by a government official in 

Guatemala, nor did she establish that any government official would consent or 

acquiesce in her torture. See B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 844 (9th Cir. 2022)

3 As the government points out, Cuyuch As did not exhaust the IJ’s conclusion that 

Cuyuch As did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because she 

could reasonably relocate in Guatemala and because her similarly situated family 

remains in Guatemala unharmed. Accordingly, we do not address these claims on 

appeal. See Santos-Zacaria, 598 U.S. at 413.
4 23-957

(“CAT protection cannot be granted unless an applicant shows a likelihood of 

torture that ‘is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or 

acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity or other person 

acting in an official capacity.’”) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.