N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
IVONNE OTILIA R

AM IR EZ SANC HEZ, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-73652 Age n c y No. A088-452-180
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a n d Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 12, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , TASHIM A, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Ivonne Otilia

R am ire z Sanc he z , a

native and c i tiz e n

of Pe ru, pe titions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B oa rd” ) de n ia l of he r a

pplic ation 

# FIL ED OCT 23 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pa ge 2 of 4

for withholding of rem ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1), and
we de ny the pe tition for re vie w . To qua lify

for withholding of rem ova l, a n a pplic ant m

ust de m onstra

te a c le ar proba

bility of pe rse c ution “

be c a use of” a prote c t e d ground, in this c a se , m e m b e rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. Al-Harbi v . IN S , 242 F.3d 882, 888–89 (9th C ir. 2001); 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(A). As were c e ntly e xpla ine d in Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly n c h , 846 F.3d 351 (9th C ir. 2017), thephra se “ be c a use of”
m e ans tha t the prote c te d ground m

ust be “ a re a son” for the a lle ge d pe rse c ution. Id.
at 358–59. The

“ a re a son” sta

nda rd a pplic a b le to withholding c la i m s is “ le ss de m anding” tha

n the “ one c e n tra l re a son” sta nda rd a pplic a b le to a sy lum

c la im s. Id.
at 360. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B oa rd’ s de t e rm i nat ion tha

t R am ire zdid not e sta blish a ne xus be twe e n a

prote c te d ground a

nd the a lle ge d

pe rse c ution or fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Eve n a ssum ing R a m i re z ’ s pa

rtic u la r soc ia l group of

“ fam i ly m e m b e rs who we re a ll the vic t im s of c rim ina ls” is c ogniz a ble , the re is substa ntia l e vide nc e tha

t the c rim ina ls who ta

rge t e d R am ire z ’ s fam ily

did so be c a use of he r husba

nd’ s a c c e ss to m one y

through his em

ploy m e nt with a pre s tigious hote l, a

n d not for a

ny othe r re a son. For e xam

ple , R am ire z te stifie d tha

t the c rim ina ls ta

rge te d he r husba

nd be c a use he ha d inform ation a

bout hisPa ge 3 of 4

e m ploy e r’ s fina

n c ia l tra n sa c tions, a

nd the n kidna

ppe d a nd be at him

whe n he fa ile d to divulgethe inform ation. R a m ire z a lso te stifie d tha

t the c rim ina ls a

tta c ke d he r
m othe r be c a

use R am ire z ’ s husba

nd re fuse d to providethe inform ation. Fina lly , R am i re zte s tifie d tha

t whe n the c rim ina ls m a de thre at e ning phonec a lls to he r hom e , the y

told he r no one would be hurt so long a s he r husba n d provide d the inform at ion tha

t would a llow the m

to rob thehote l . On this re c ord, the B oa rd ha d substa ntia l e vide nc e to c onc lude tha t a ny pe rse c ution or fe a

r of future pe rse c ution
wa s not be c a

use of R a m ire z ’ s m e m

be rship in a pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group, but ra

the r be c a use of the c rim i na ls’ de sire to rob thehote l for whic h he r husba nd worke d. W e ne e d not re m and in light of our de c ision in B arajas-Rome ro . Although the B oa rd a pplie d the “ one c e ntra l re a son” sta nda rd a pplic a ble to a sy lum c la im s, ra the r tha n the “ a re a son” sta

nda rd a p plic a ble to withholding c la im s, the outc om e would be the sa

m e unde r e ithe r sta

nda rd. He re , R am ire z pre s e nts no e vide nc e tha t the c rim ina ls ta

rge te d he r fa m ily

be c a use of the fam ily

re lationship per se , rathe r tha n be c a use of the i r de sire to e xtort inform at ion tha t would a llow the m

to rob the hote l. Se e Matte r of L-E-A- , 27 I. & N. De c . 40, 45 (B IA 2017) (“ [N] e xus is not
e sta blishe d sim

ply be c a use a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group of fa

m ily m e m be rs e xists a

nd the fam ily

m e m be rs e xpe rie n c e ha

rm .” ). The re fore , R am ire z ha s not e sta blishe d a
ne xus to a

prote c te d ground. S

e e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir.Pa ge 4 of 4

2010) (“ An a lie n’ s de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim ina ls m otiva

t e d by the ft or ra ndom viole nc e by

ga ng m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a

prote c te d ground.” ). The pe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D
.