NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO CALDERON CRUZ; MAIRA 

CONSUELO MORALES,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 21-497

Agency Nos. A072-663-902

A073-426-654

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 07, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and KATZMANN,

***

Judge.

Petitioners Julio Calderon Cruz and Maira Consuelo Morales, natives and 

citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)

* 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 Gary S. Katzmann, Judge for the United States 

Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 9 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and dismissing 

Calderon Cruz’s appeal from the IJ’s decision denying his application for 

special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and 

Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). We deny the petition for review.

As to Calderon Cruz, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

adverse-credibility determination because Calderon Cruz admitted to giving 

false statements to immigration officials in order to receive immigration 

benefits. See Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1180–81 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(explaining that, except in narrow circumstances inapplicable here, a 

noncitizen’s “deliberate deception” to “avoid being denied relief” is substantial 

evidence supporting an adverse-credibility determination). In addition, 

Calderon-Cruz’s challenge to the agency’s NACARA determination fails 

because the IJ denied NACARA relief as a matter of discretion, which 

independently foreclosed such relief. See Monroy v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175, 

1176–78 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the IJ “has discretion” to grant 

NACARA relief to a noncitizen who is statutorily eligible for that relief); 8 

C.F.R. § 1240.64(a) (explaining that a noncitizen seeking “special rule 

cancellation of removal” must establish both that they are eligible “and that 

discretion should be exercised to grant relief”). Calderon-Cruz presents no 

argument challenging this exercise of discretion. 

As to Consuelo Morales, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 
3

lack-of-nexus determination for her asylum and withholding claims. 

Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019) (explaining that 

“general conditions of violence related to gangs” do not establish the requisite 

nexus to a protected ground). Substantial evidence—such as country condition 

reports documenting the Guatemalan government’s efforts to combat the kind of 

gang violence Petitioners fear—also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief 

on the basis that Petitioners failed to show that they would more likely than not 

be tortured by the government or through the government’s acquiescence if 

returned to Guatemala. Id.; Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (“[A] general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to . . . prevent 

crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.