NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Maria Elena Lopez Guerrero; Nora

Guzman Lopez; Blanca Guzman Lopez;

Ublado Guzman Lopez; Paloma Guzman

Lopez; Alexa Guzman Lopez

Petitioners,

v.

Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-61

Agency Nos. A208-604-328

A208-604-329

A208-604-330

A208-604-331

A208-604-332

A208-604-333

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Portland, Oregon

Before: RAWLINSON, BEA, SUNG, Circuit Judges.

* 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

APR 19 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 Case: 22-61, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 1 of 5
2 22-61

Petitioners Maria Elena Lopez Guerrero and her five children, all natives 

and citizens of Mexico, petition this court for review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing their appeal from the 

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Petitioners’ application for asylum and 

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). For the 

reasons below, we deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the determination that Petitioners did not 

show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution because the 

record did not establish the required nexus between the Petitioners’ experiences 

and proposed social group.

1 Although Petitioners understandably fear 

comunitario and cartel violence, the record does not show that either the 

comunitarios or cartel targeted Petitioners because of their familial relationship 

to an individual who resisted recruitment and extortion. See Hussain v. Rosen, 

985 F.3d 634, 646 (9th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that “an applicant must show 

[they were] individually targeted on account of a protected ground rather than 

simply the victim of generalized violence”).

Petitioners argue that the IJ and BIA did not correctly characterize the 

proposed social group, which Petitioners describe as relatives of an individual 

who resisted and fled comunitario recruitment who themselves fled Mexico and 

1 We review the agency’s factual findings, including whether alleged 

persecutors were motivated by Petitioners’ membership in a particular social 

group, for substantial evidence. Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)).

 Case: 22-61, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 2 of 5
3 22-61

then returned. Even assuming Petitioners adequately presented that proposed 

social group to the agency and that it is cognizable and not waived, Petitioners’ 

general, anecdotal assertions that cartels kill those who flee and then return do 

not establish that Petitioners might be targeted because of their membership in 

that group. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding 

fear of future persecution was too speculative where record did not contain 

specific evidence). Petitioners therefore did not satisfy the nexus requirement 

for either asylum or withholding of removal.2

2. Petitioners failed to exhaust their ineffective assistance of counsel

(IAC) claim. Generally, Petitioners may not raise an IAC claim in front of the 

BIA unless they (1) provide an affidavit detailing their agreement with counsel, 

(2) inform counsel of the ineffective assistance claim against them and provide 

counsel an opportunity to respond, and (3) report whether a complaint was filed 

with the appropriate professional disciplinary authority. Guan v. Barr, 925 F.3d 

1022, 1033 n.6 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 

639 (BIA 1988)). Petitioners did not satisfy these procedural requirements. 

2 Petitioners have not shown any causal relationship between their feared harm 

and a particular social group, so we do not need to address the difference in the 

nexus requirements for asylum (requiring membership in a particular social 

group to be “one central reason” for persecution) and withholding (requiring 

membership to be only “a reason”). Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 

360 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 

2010)).

 Case: 22-61, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 3 of 5
4 22-61

A petitioner’s failure to comply with Matter of Lozada may be excused if 

“the ineffectiveness of counsel was plain on its face.” Id. at 1033 (quoting 

Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 2010)). To show ineffective 

assistance of counsel, a petitioner must establish “inadequate performance and 

prejudice.” Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 

2015). Petitioners’ initial counsel’s decision to file a joint asylum application 

does not plainly constitute inadequate performance: Petitioners were not 

required to file individual applications for asylum, and because five of the 

Petitioners were minors at the time they applied for relief, counsel may have 

had strategic or humanitarian reasons for advising Petitioners to file jointly.

Petitioners have therefore failed to exhaust their administrative remedies for this 

portion of their IAC claim.

Petitioners did not raise their counsels’ failure to challenge their Notices 

to Appear in front of the BIA. Before raising the issue in their petition for 

review, Petitioners were required to file a motion to reopen. Ontiveros-Lopez v. 

I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (motion to reopen required for 

administrative exhaustion of ineffective assistance of counsel claim to allow the 

agency to apply its expertise to a fully developed record). Because they did not 

 Case: 22-61, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 4 of 5
5 22-61

do so, Petitioners have also failed to exhaust their administrative remedies for 

this piece of their IAC claim. 3

DENIED.

3 Even if we were to assume Petitioners did not fail to exhaust their 

administrative remedies, we would conclude that their counsels’ failure to 

challenge their Notices to Appear is not plainly ineffective on the face of the 

record because the record does not show inadequate performance. CastilloPerez, 212 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir. 2000). Issued December 11, 2015,

Petitioners’ charging documents allege that “On December 9, 2015, 

[Petitioners] applied for admission into the United States through San Ysidro 

POE pedestrian inspections.” Accordingly, 8 U.S.C § 1182(a)(7), not § 

1182(a)(6), was the correct inadmissibility provision.

 Case: 22-61, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 5 of 5