Opinion ID: 3210779
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: To be eligible for withholding of removal, Petitioners must demonstrate that there is a “clear probability” that, if they were to return to Guatemala, they would be persecuted “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” See Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 469-70 (3d Cir. 2003); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). J.M., who is also seeking asylum, must meet a similar, but less stringent standard for relief via asylum. He must demonstrate that he has “a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). We find no error in the BIA’s determination that Petitioners have not shown that they were persecuted or would be persecuted on account of their membership in a particular social group. Setting aside, as the BIA did, the issue of whether “indigenous wom[e]n without familial protection” is a cognizable social group under the INA, there is insufficient evidence of a nexus between Bol-Velasquez’s membership in that group and her extortion by the gangs.2 Bol-Velasquez’s testimony reflects that the extortion by the gangs was not motivated by her membership in any social group, but, rather, was 2 Bol-Velasquez is not seeking relief on the basis of the alleged domestic violence by Tello. See A.R. 4 n.3. 5 “ordinary criminal activity [that] does not rise to the level of persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum.” See Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 494 (3d Cir. 2001); see, e.g., A.R. 161 (Bol-Velasquez testifying that gangs extorted men as well as women). J.M.’s claims for relief likewise fail because he has not articulated, or supported with evidence, how he was or would be targeted on account of his being in a particular social group.3 Thus, under either the withholding-of-removal or asylum standard, Petitioners have failed to establish their eligibility for relief. We also find no error with the BIA’s determination that the Petitioners have not demonstrated that they are eligible for relief under the CAT. To qualify for relief under the CAT, Petitioners must establish that it is more likely than not that they would be tortured “with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” if removed. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see Kaplun v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 602 F.3d 260, 268 (3d Cir. 2010). As the IJ and BIA noted, Petitioners did not present evidence sufficient to demonstrate that any torture they might be subjected to would be done with the consent or acquiescence of any public official. See, e.g., A.R. 161 (BolVelasquez testifying that she had never sought help from the police in Guatemala).