N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NANC Y HAYDEE GR

AVE ESC OB AR , Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-70857 Age n c y No. A206-682-636
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 April 11, 2022 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A a

n d LEE, C irc uit Judge s, a n d C ARDONE, *** Distric t Judge
. Nanc y Hay de e Grave Esc oba r, a native and c i tiz e n of Gua te m a la , pe titions for re vie w of a

de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA or B oa rd), 

# FIL ED APR 15 2022 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 nam ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2)(C ).

* * * The Honora

ble Kathle e n C ardone , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.dism issing he r a p p e a l of a de c ision of theIm

m i gra tion Judge , who de nie d he r a pplic a tion for a s y lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252,
and we de ny the pe tition. The B IA did not e rr in c onc luding tha t Esc oba r fa ile d to e s ta

blish e ligibility for re lie f ba se d on m e m

be rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. Se e N

guy e n v . Barr , 983 F.3d 1099, 1101 (9th C ir. 2020) (sta ting tha t whe the r a

propose d pa rtic ula r soc i a l group is c ogniz a

ble is a q ue stion of la

w re v ie we d

de novo); Parada v
. Se ssions , 902 F.3d 901, 909 (9th C ir. 2018) (“ To be e ligible for a sy lum , [a pe titione r] m

ust e s ta blish tha t . . . [s] he is “ una

ble or unwilling to return to [Gua te m a la ] ‘ be c a

use of pe rse c ution or a

we ll-founde d

fe a r of pe rse c ution 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.’ ” (quoting Me lk onian v
. Ashc roft , 320 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th C ir. 2003))). Esc o ba

r fa ile d to e sta

b lish tha t he r propose d soc ia l group of Gua te m a la n busine ss owne rs like ly

to be ha rm e d for the ir re s ista

nc e to c oope ra tion with
c rim ina l ga

ngs is “ (1) c om

pose d of m e m

be rs who sha

re a c om m on im m uta ble
c ha ra c te ristic , (2) de fine d with pa rtic ula rity , and (3) soc ia lly

distinc t within the
soc i e ty in que stion.” Mac e do Te mplos v . W ilk inson , 987 F.3d 877, 882 (9th C ir. 2021) (quoting Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227, 237 (B IA 2014)); se e id.
2a t 881–83 (re je c ting pe titione r’ s propose d soc ia l group of we a l thy busine ss owne rs in M e xic o who re siste d e xtortion). Sim ila r to Mac e do Te mplos , the re is no e vide n c e tha t Esc oba r’ s propose d
soc i a l group is re ga

rde d by soc ie ty a s soc ia lly

distinc t. Id. a t 882. Nor is the group de fine d with pa

rtic ula rity be c a use , a s Esc oba

r a c k nowle dge d, the ga

ng m e m be rs e xtorte d m any

diffe re nt pe ople
. Se e id. (“ [T] he propose d group la c ks pa rtic ula rity be c a use it c ould inc lude la

rge swaths of pe ople and va rious c ross-se c tions of a
c om m unity .” ). As the B oa

rd re a sone d, Esc oba

r did not e sta

blish tha t the ha rm wa s on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground be c a use the re c o rd showe d tha t the ha rm “ re late [d] to c rim ina lity

foc use d on e xtortion a

nd fina nc ia l ga in.” Se e id. a t

883 (finding no
ne xus to a

prote c te d ground whe re the e vide nc e showe d tha t “ c rim ina ls in M e xic o will ta rge t a ny one the y

be lie ve c an pa

y , re g a rdle ss of the i r vic tim ’ s ba c kground or
re a s on for the ir we a lth” ); Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C i r. 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
random viole nc e by

ga ng m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a prote c t e d ground.” ). The B oa rd’ s furthe r finding tha

t Esc oba r did not e sta

blish tha t “ the pe rse c u tion wa s c om m itte d by the gove rnm e nt, or by

forc e s tha

t the gove rnm e nt wa s una ble or unwilling to c ontrol,” Dav ila v . Barr , 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th C ir. 2020) (quoting
3Baghdasaryan v . Holde r , 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th C ir. 2010)), is supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e be c a

use Esc oba

r ne v e r re porte d the thre a ts to thepolic e . B e c a use Esc oba

r ha s fa ile d

to e sta blish e ligibility

for a sy lum , he r c la im for withholding of rem o v a l a lso fa ils. Se e id. a t 1142 (“ An a pplic ant who fa ils to
satisfy the lowe r sta

nda rd for a sy lum

ne c e ssa rily fa ils to sa

tisfy the m o re de m anding sta

nda rd for withholding of rem ova l, whic h involve s showing by

a

‘ c le ar proba

bility ’ tha t the pe t itione r’ s life or fre e dom would be thre at e ne d in the propose d c ountry of re m ova l.” ). Esc oba r a lso fa ile d

to e sta b lish e ligibility for C AT re lie f be c a

use she provide d no e vide nc e tha t it is m ore like ly

tha n not tha t she in pa rtic ula r would be subje c t to ha

rm am ounting to torture

by , or with the
a c quie sc e nc e of, a

gove rnm e n t offic ia l if she re turne d to Gua te m a la
. Garc ia v
. W ilk inson , 988 F.3d 1136, 1147 (9th C i r. 2021). The pe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D.

4