N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JUANA JOAQUIN NIC OLAS; LEANDR O ALEXANDER FR ANC ISC O JOAQUIN, Pe t i tione rs,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-72061 Age n c y Nos. A208-596-011

A208-596-012
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 Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 17, 2021 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

n d B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B A TAILLON, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED DEC 2 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Jose ph F. B ata illon, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ne b ra ska , sitting by de signa tion.Jua

na Joa q uin Nic ola s a

p pe a ls the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a l s de nia l of he r a pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l. 1 “ W e re vie w de n ia ls of a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd C AT re lie f for substa

ntia l e vide nc e and will uphold a de nia l supporte d by

re a sona ble , substa

ntia l , a nd proba t ive e vide nc e on the re c ord
c onside re d a s a

whole .” Ling Huang v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th C ir. 2014) (c le ane d up) (quoting Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th C ir. 2014)). Unde r this sta nda rd, the a ge nc y de te rm ination m u st be uphe ld “ unle ss the e vide n c e c om

p e ls a c ontra ry c onc lusion.” Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C ir. 2019) (c iting IN S v . Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992)). To e s ta blish e ligibility for withholding of rem ova l, Joa q uin Nic ola s m

ust de m onstra

te “ that it is mo re like ly

tha n not tha t . . . shewould be pe rse c ute d on
a c c ount of ra c e , re ligion, na tiona lity , m e m

be rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group, or politic a l opinion upon re

m ova l to [Gua

te m a la ]
. ” 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.16(b)(2). Tha t is, she m u st de m onstra

te tha t he r “ life or fre e dom

would be thre ate ne d in [he r

1 Joa quin Nic ola s doe s not c h a lle nge the B IA's de nia l of he r C A T c la im . It a lso a ppe ars tha

t she doe s not c ha lle nge the B IA's de nia l of he r a sy lum c la im . B ut to the e xte nt she doe s, he r c ha l le nge would fa il for the sa m e re a sons disc usse d he re in. Se e Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th C ir. 2016) (e xpla ining that both a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l c l a im s re quire a

ne xus be twe e n the prote c te d ground a nd the a lle ge d pe rse c ution). 2hom e ] c ountry be c a useof [he r] ra c e , re ligion, na t iona lity , m e m

b e rship in a pa rtic u la r soc ia l group, or politic a l opinion.” 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3) (e m pha sis
a dde d). Joa quin Nic ola s m

ust e sta blish a ne x us b e t we e n he r pa st or fe are d

ha rm and
a propose d prote c te d ground. Se e Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 359–60 (9th C ir. 2017). Thene xus sta nda rd re quire s he r to show tha t the prote c te d ground

“ wa s a re a son” for he r pe rse c ution. 8 U.S.C
. § 1231 (b)(3)(c ). She c annot do so. W ith re spe c t to Joa q

uin Nic ola s’ s first propose d prote c te d soc ia l group, “ m

y
m othe r’ s da

ughte r,” she fa ile d to e sta blish a suffic ie nt ne xus be twe e n the ha rm suffe re d by

som e of he r fam ily m e m

be rs a nd he r fam ily

m e m be rship. The pe rpe t ra t or ha s ne ve r be e n ide ntifie d, nor ha s his or he r m otive . Tha t som e of Joa q uin Nic ola s’ s fam ily

m e m be rs we re kille d, a

nd the anony

m ous individua

l kne w of the ir de at

h, is not e nough to show a ne xus. The re c ord la c ks e vide nc e tha t the t hre at s a nd ha rm a ga inst he r or he r fam ily m e m be rs we re m otiva

te d by the ir
re lationship. The

thre at s re fe re nc e d

he r m othe r’ s de at

h. B ut the individual’ s knowle dge of he r m othe r’ s a nd a unt’ s de ath doe s not c om

pe l us to c onc lude tha

t the t hre at s we re m a d e be c a

use of he r re lationship to the m . Thus, theB IA c orre c tly
a ffirm e d the IJ’ s finding tha t Joa quin Nic ola s fa ile d to e sta blish tha t she wa s

3ta

rge te d in thepa st or would be ta rge te d in thefuture ba se d on he r fam i ly
m e m b e rship. W ith re spe c t to Joa q

uin Nic ola s be ing a

n indige nous fe m a le , she a lso fa ils to
e sta blish a suffic ie nt ne xus. The re c ord doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t she
wa s ta rge te d in thepa st or would be ta rge t e d in thefuture ba se d on he r status a s a n indige nous fe m a le
. The pe tition is DE NIE D.

4