NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NERI VASQUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-565

Agency No.

A208-081-671

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 6, 2023**

Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District 

Judge.

***

Neri Vasquez (“Vasquez”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of a decision by the (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an immigration 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for 

the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

FILED

DEC 22 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-565

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

to review the agency decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Where, as here, the BIA 

adopts the immigration judge’s decision and also adds its own reasons, we review 

both decisions.” Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation 

omitted). Reviewing legal questions de novo and the agency’s factual findings for 

substantial evidence, Kumar v. Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2013), we deny 

the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Vasquez 

has not demonstrated a clear probability of future persecution in Guatemala on 

account of a protected ground. Vasquez argues that the murder of his cousin’s son, 

Santos, is an incidence of past persecution that can be imputed to him and thus 

indicate the likelihood of his future persecution. Though a finding of past 

persecution on account of a protected ground would give rise to a “rebuttable 

presumption of eligibility for withholding of removal,” Flores Molina v. Garland, 

37 F.4th 626, 638 (9th Cir. 2022), the record reflects only that Santos was killed 

“for being with a girl that had a boyfriend.” This does not suggest a protected 

ground, and allegations of isolated violence against family members are 

insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See ArriagaBarrientos v. I.N.S., 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991). 
3 22-565

Nor did the agency err in rejecting his proposed social groups of 

“Guatemalan men returning to Guatemala” and “people returning from the United 

States after extensive absences” as overbroad.1 Vasquez reasons that these groups 

include individuals who have assimilated into American culture and thus differ 

from other returnee-based social groups that we have rejected. See Delgado-Ortiz 

v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151 –52 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “‘returning 

Mexicans from the United States’ . . . is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social 

group”). Even if we accept that assimilation into American culture is an 

immutable characteristic, the fact that some members of his proposed groups may 

have assimilated does not address the groups’ overbreadth or distinguish them 

from the group rejected in Delgado-Ortiz. The particularity and social distinction 

requirements for establishing a cognizable social group remain unsatisfied. See

Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1077 (9th Cir. 2020).

2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because Vasquez failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be 

tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. Vasquez 

argues that the “Board incorrectly determined that the record lacks any evidence” 

1 Vasquez forfeited any challenge to the agency’s rejection of “Guatemalan men 

opposing gang violence” as a social group by failing to make an argument 

applicable to that group in his opening brief. See Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 

F.4th 942, 959 (9th Cir. 2021).
4 22-565

that he would be tortured and that there is a strong likelihood he would “be a 

victim of harm that could constitute torture” if he returned to Guatemala. But 

Vasquez points to no evidence in the record to support either claim, and he makes 

no arguments regarding why the record compels the Board’s finding to be 

overturned. Such conclusory statements are insufficient to meet his burden of 

proving eligibility for CAT protection. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.