NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEX FRANCISCO PEREZ

- CARRANZA,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 73835 Agency No. A200

- 885

- 250

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 7, 2022 * * Seattle, Washington Before: NGUYEN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Alex Francisco Perez

- Carranza , a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his asylum application. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and w e deny the petition.

* 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). 

# FILED

MAR 16 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

An asylum applicant must establish a nexus between the persecution suffered or feared and a protected ground , such as “ nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)

. Two major events form the basis of Perez

- Carranza ’s claim of persecution. First, before he left Honduras, he was attacked by members of the 18th Street Gang as revenge for his relationship with one of their ex

- girlfriends

. S econd, almost a decade after Perez

Carranza came to the United States, his brother

- in

- law cooperated with the Honduran police to thwart an extortion attempt by the same gang. Perez

- Carranza argues that he suffered or will suffer gang - related persecution on account of his membership in two groups: “Famil y members of [his sister] who have resided with her in San Miguel ” or “h ousehold family members of those who have testified against or provided information useful in prosecution of Honduran gang members. ” The Board disagreed, reasoning that “personal dispu te[s]” and “[g]eneral criminal activity of the sort [Perez

- Carranza] and his family members suffered and fears does not provide a sufficient nexus to an enumerated ground.” We review the Board’s determination for substantial evidence

. Garcia v. Wilkinson , 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021)

. Under that standard, we must accept the Board’s factual findings “unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary conclusion.” Arteaga v. Mukasey , 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007); see 8 U.S.C.3

§ 1252( b )( 4)(B). B ecause the Board assumed without deciding that the pro posed social groups are cognizable, we do the same

. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Perez

- Carranza has not established a nexus between familial membership and gang viol ence or extortion.
Perez

- Carranza acknowledged that the gang attacked him because of “a personal dispute.” However, p ersonal disputes unconnected to a protected ground cannot form the basis for asylum

. Molina

- Morales v. INS , 237 F.3d 1048, 1051

– 52 (9th Cir

. 2001) ; Pagay o n v. Holder , 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)

. Likewise, there may be a risk that gang s will retaliate against those who cooperate with police . But Perez

- Carranza has twelve siblings, nine of whom still live in Honduras and m ost of whom have never been threatened by the 18th Street Gang. Indeed, even among those members of his family who have lived with his sister in San Miguel , most have not been threatened

. And n o one in the family has been targeted since 2012. A ccordingly, the record does not compel the conclusion that
Perez

- Carranza has a reasonable fear of future persecution on account of his membership in either proposed social group

. All pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION DENIED.