N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FLORENTINA C ARRETO-ESC OB AR ; e t a l., Pe t i tione rs,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-71073 Age n c y Nos. A208-188-614

A208-188-615 A208-188-616 A208-188-617
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, Subm i ssion De fe rre d April 14, 2020 **

R e subm itte d

April 22, 2020 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd FER NANDEZ a

nd W . FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s . Flore ntina

C a rre to-Esc o ba

r (“ C arre to-Esc oba

r” ) and he r thre e m inor
c hildre n (c olle c tive ly , “ Pe t i tione rs” ), native s and c itiz e ns of Gua te m a la , pe tition 

# FIL ED APR 22 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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).for re vie w of a B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing the ir
a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de nia l of the ir a pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e vide nc e and que stions of la w de novo. Madrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th C ir. 2013). B e c a use ne ithe r the im

m igrat ion judge(“ IJ” ) nor the B IA m a de any

e xplic it a d

ve rse c re dibility

finding, wea ssum e Pe titione rs’ fa c tua l
a sse rtions a

re true . Se e Ming Dai v . Se s sions , 884 F.3d 858, 863 (9th C ir. 2018). W e grant the pe tition for re vie w in pa rt, de ny it in pa rt, a nd we re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 1. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s a ffirm anc e of the IJ’ s de nia l of the Pe titione rs’ a

pplic ations for a sy lum be c a use the ha rm the y suffe re d wa s not

“ on a c c ount of” a

prote c te d ground. C arre to-Esc oba r’ s e lde st son te stifie d tha t ga ng m e m be rs a ssa ulte d him be c a use he re fuse d to join the m , whic h is not a prote c te d ground for im

m igration re lie f, se e Barrios v . Holde r , 581 F.3d 849, 852

– 53 (9th C ir. 2009), partially abrogate d on othe r

grounds by

He nrique z-Riv as
v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ) (“ [A pe titione r’ s ] re fusa l to join
a ga n g doe s not m ake him

a m e m be r of a pa rtic ula r soc i a l group or c onstitute a politic a l opinion.” ). In a ddition, C arre to-Esc oba r’ s te stim ony doe s not c o m pe l the
2c onc lusion tha t he r M am e thnic ity wa s “ one c e ntra l re a s on” for he r pe rse c ution, give n the othe r te stim onia l an d re c ord e vide nc e of wide spre a d ga ng viole n c e . Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C i r. 2010) (“ An [a pplic ant’ s] de sire to be fre e from

ha ra ssm e nt by c rim ina ls m otiva te d by the ft or ra

n dom viole nc e by ga ng m e m be rs be a rs no ne xus to a prote c te d ground.” ). For the sa

m e re a sons, the
re c o rd doe s not c om

pe l the c o n c lusion tha

t any future ha rm will be “ on a c c ount of”
a prote c te d ground. 2. The B IA de nie d withholding of re m ova l ba se d

on its de nia l of a sy lum
. Howe ve r, ne ithe r of the two re a sons unde rly ing the B IA’ s de nia l of a sy lum provide s a

ba sis for de ny ing withholding of re m o va l. First, substa

ntia l e vide n c e doe s not support the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t the ha rm pe titione rs suffe re d doe s not c onstitute pe rse c ution. C arre to-Esc oba r te stifie d tha

t M ara -18 ga

n g m e m be rs re pe a te dly

hit he r sons. He r sons c onfirm e d this. She te stifie d tha

t the ga n gs trie d to kidna

p a nd ra pe he r da ughte r. The ga

ngs stole the ir m o ne y . Ga

ngs thre w roc ks a

t the ir house at night. The se a c ts c ontribute to a finding of pe rse c ution. Se e C hand v . IN

S , 222 F.3d 1066, 1070

– 1074 (9th C ir. 2000) (holding tha

t re c o rd c om

pe lle d finding of pa st pe rse c ution whe re pe titione r
wa s the vic tim

of viole nc e thre e tim e s, re p e a te dly robbe d ove r the c ourse of a fe w y e ars, a nd ha d his houseva

nda liz e d a

nd his be longings stole

n). The fa c t tha

t
3Pe titione rs we re “ v ic t im iz e d at diffe re nt tim e s ove r a pe riod of y e ars” furthe r supports a

finding of pe rse c ution. Ahme d v . K e isle r , 504 F.3d 1183, 1194 (9th C ir. 2007). Take n toge the r, this te stim ony c o m pe ls the c onc l usion tha

t the ha rm C arre t o-Esc oba

r suffe re d rise s to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Se e Rios v . Ashc roft , 287 F.3d 895, 900 (9th C ir. 2002) (finding a tte m pte d kidna

p of son, in c onjunc tion with othe r harm s , c om

pe lle d finding of pa st pe rse c ution). Se c ond, the B IA’ s de t e rm ination tha t Pe titione rs’ M am

e thnic ity will not be

“ one c e ntra l re a son” for future ha rm doe s not provide a

ba sis for de ny ing withholding of rem o v a l re lie f. To be e ligiblefor withholding of rem ova l, a pe titione r ne e d only

show tha t a prote c te d ground will be

“ a re a son” for future pe rse c ution, whic h is “ a

le ss de m anding sta

nda rd” tha n “ one c e n tra l re a son.” Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly n c h , 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th C ir. 2017). B e c a use we “ c annot de ny a pe tition for re vie w on a ground [upon whic h] the B IA itse l f did not ba se its de c ision,” Ming Dai , 884 F.3d a t 866 (quota

tion omitte d ) (a lte ra tion in origina l),
we re m and for the B IA to c onside r C arre to-Esc oba r’ s c la im for withholding of
re m ova l in a m anne r c o n siste n t with the se findings. The B IA wrote in its orde r de ny ing re lie f, “ [n] othing in the re c o rd indic a te s tha

t the ga ng m e m be rs would have tre a t e d

the re sponde nts a

ny diffe re ntly

if the y we re not M am .” H owe ve r, we note tha t C arre to-Esc o ba

r te stifie d tha

t the ga ng m e m be rs who ha

ra sse d he r and
4he r c hildre n we re “ L a tino,” spoke only Spanish, a

nd ha ra sse d M am s. Furthe r, he r olde st son te s tifie d

tha t ga ng m e m be rs “ w ould ha

ra ss pe ople tha

t spe ak M am .” 3. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use the re c ord doe s not c o m

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t it is more like ly

tha n not tha t Pe titione rs would suffe r harm rising to the

le ve l of torture if the y re turn to Guate m a la
. Se e Ahme d , 504 F.3d a t 1200

– 01 (gra

nting pe tition for re vie w for
a sy lum c la im

be c a use ha rm c onstitute d

pe rse c ution, but finding C AT re lie f
unwa rrante d be c a

u s e ha rm did not rise

to the le ve l of torture ).
PE T IT IO N G RANT E D IN PART ; DE NIE D IN PART ; RE M ANDE D .

5