N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OSA GLORIA C AB R ER A C ALDER ON, JUAN ALEXANDER JIM ENEZ C AB R ER

A, Pe t i tione rs,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 22-1054 Age n c y Nos. A208-599-355 A208-599-356 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 17, 2023 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : R

AW LINSON, B EA a

nd SUNG, C irc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED APR 19 2023 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).R osa

Gloria C a bre ra C a lde ron (C a lde ron) a

nd he r m inor son, na

tive s a nd
c itiz e ns of M e xic o , pe t ition for re vie w of a de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls (B IA) dism issing the ir a ppe a l of the de n ia l by

an Im m igration Judge(IJ) of a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(a ), and we de ny the pe tition. Whe n the B IA c ite s Matte r of Burbano , 20 I. & N. De c . 872 (B IA 1994),
a dopting the

IJ’ s de c ision, a

nd a lso provide s its own re a soning, were vie w both the IJ’ s a nd the B IA’ s de c i sions. Se e Ruiz-C olme nare s v .Garland

, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th C ir. 2022). W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination that a pe titione r ha s fa i le d to e sta blish e ligibility

for a sy lum , withholding of
re m ova l, or C AT re lie f. Se e Planc arte Sauc e da v . Garland

, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th C ir. 2022), as ame nde d . To pre va il unde r this sta nda rd, “ the pe titione r m

ust show that the e vide nc e not only

supports, but c om

pe ls the c onc lusion tha

t the s e findings
and de c isions a

re e rrone o us.” Id . (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). 1. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Pe titione rs fa ile d to e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution. W e have he ld tha t “ [v] i ole n c e a ga inst fa

m ily
m e m b e rs . . . m ay

support a n a pplic ant’ s a s y l um

c l a im .” M

ashiri v . Ashc roft , 383 F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th C ir. 2004), as ame nde d (c ita tions omitte d). Ne ve rthe le ss,
2viole nc e a ga inst fa m ily m e m b e rs “ m ust be pa rt of a patte rn of pe rse c ution c lose ly tie d to the pe titione r.” Sharma v . Garland , 9 F.4th 1052, 1062 (9th C ir. 2021) (c ita tions, a lte ra t ion a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). The re c ord fa ils to
c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the ha rm C a lde ron’ s fam ily e ndure d wa s c lose ly tie d to Pe titione rs. Se e id
. 2. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the c onc lusion tha

t Pe titione rs fa ile d to e sta

blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution be c a use the y c ould have re loc ate d to a

nothe r pa rt of M e xic o. Se e Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th C ir. 2019). C a lde ron te s tifie d tha t she ha d fam ily

in Tijua na and

“ m ay be ” she c ould livethe re . And she a c knowle d ge d tha t he r m o the r and siste rs have live d

without inc ide nt in Urua

pa n for se ve ra l y e a

rs. 3. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the c onc l usion tha

t Pe titione rs we re not pe rse c ute d on a c c o unt of m e m be rship in the i r fa m ily
. Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-1016 (9th C ir. 2010), as ame nde d. Pe titione rs fa i le d to e sta blish that fam ily m e m

be rship “ wa s at

le a st one c e ntra l re a son” the y we re pe rse c ute d. Id
. at 1015. 4. The de te rm ination tha t Pe titione rs fa ile d to de m o nstra te the y are
m e m b e rs of the pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group of la

ndowne rs is supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e . Se e Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 & n.3 (9th C ir. 2016)
3(disc ussing m e m be rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group). Sim ila

rly , substa

ntia l
e vide nc e supports the

de t e rm i nation tha

t Pe titione rs fa ile d to e s ta blish tha t the y he ld a n a nti-ga ng politic a l opinion. Se e Santos-Le mus v . Muk ase y , 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th C i r. 2008), abrogate d on othe r grounds by H e nrique z-Riv a s v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ) (disc ussing la c k of e vide nc e to
e sta blish a n ti-ga ng politic a l opinion). 5. Ge ne ra lly , a

n a pplic ant who fa ils to e s ta

blish e l igibility

for a s y lum
ne c e ssa rily fa ils to qualify for withholding of rem o va l. S e e Sark ar v . Garland

, 39 F.4th 611, 622 (9th C ir. 2022). Howe ve r, we re c e ntly c la rifie d tha t the “ a re a son”
ne xus sta nda rd for withholding of rem ova l is le ss de m anding tha n the “ o n e c e ntra l
re a s on” ne xus sta

n da rd for a sy lum
. Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th C ir. 2017). Thea ge nc y m u st a pply the prope r ne xus sta

nda rd in de c iding
a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l c l a im s. Se e id . at 357-60. He re , the B IA c ite d Barajas-Rome ro and e xplic itly re fe re nc e d the c orre c t ne xus sta nda rds whe n de ny ing e a c h re que ste d re l ie f. 6. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the IJ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use Pe titione rs fa ile d to de m o nstra te tha t the y would m ore like ly tha n not be torture d with thea c quie sc e nc e or c onse nt of a public offic i a l. Se e B.R. v
. Garland , 26 F.4th 827, 845 (9th C ir. 2022). “ Ge ne ra liz e d e vide n c e of viole nc e in a c ountry is itse lf
4insuffic ie nt to e sta blish tha t a ny one in the gove rnm e nt would a c quie sc e to a pe titione r’ s torture .” Id . (c ita tion omi tte d). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

5