Court Opinion

ID: 9881067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 17:01:07.353846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:01.739659
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 29 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTHA GOMEZ PALACIOS; MARIA                    No. 21-876
BERNAL GOMEZ; ERNESTA BERNAL                    Agency Nos.
GOMEZ,                                          A202-063-111
                                                A202-063-112
             Petitioners,
                                                A202-063-113
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                       Argued and Submitted April 19, 2023
                                Phoenix, Arizona

Before: TALLMAN, OWENS, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Martha Gomez Palacios (“Gomez Palacios”), a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision

dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Torture (“CAT”). Two of Gomez Palacios’ daughters, Maria de los Angeles

Bernal Gomez and Ernesta Bernal Gomez, are derivatives of her asylum

application. We review the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, which is

“highly deferential” and requires upholding the BIA’s decision unless the evidence

“compels” otherwise. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021)

(emphasis and citations omitted). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do

not recount them here. We deny the petition.

      1.     Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum for Gomez

Palacios and her two daughters.

      “To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to demonstrate a

likelihood of ‘persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion.’” Id. at 1059 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)).

      Gomez Palacios sought asylum on account of her membership in two

particular social groups: (1) her familial relationship with her extended family; and

(2) “persons who have provided information to authorities investigating cartel

members.”

      For the particular social group of her family, substantial evidence supports

the BIA’s finding that Gomez Palacios failed to establish that her persecution was

on account of her family relationship. The kidnappers abducted victims who were

                                         2                                     21-876
not Gomez Palacios’ family members, they expressed that they were motivated by

their desire to sexually assault female victims and to force the male victims to

perform manual labor for the cartel, and such kidnappings are a common

occurrence across the part of Mexico where the kidnappings occurred. Thus, a

“reasonable adjudicator” could conclude, as the agency did here, that Gomez

Palacios failed to establish that her persecution was on account of her family

relationship. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (providing that the BIA’s findings must be

upheld “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary”). Although Gomez Palacios and nearly twenty members of her extended

family were kidnapped by cartel members, that does not compel the conclusion

that she and her family were targeted because of their family relationship given the

other evidence. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (A

petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or

random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”).

      For the particular social group of “persons who have provided information to

authorities investigating cartel members,” substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

finding that Gomez Palacios does not have an objectively reasonable fear of future

persecution. The BIA noted that Gomez Palacios has family members, including

her son, who continue to live in Mexico without incident. See Sharma, 9 F.4th at

1066 (“The ongoing safety of family members in the petitioner’s native country

                                        3                                    21-876
undermines a reasonable fear of future persecution.”). And while in separate

proceedings some of Gomez Palacios’ family members were granted asylum based

on this same particular social group, each case is evaluated individually, and these

other decisions do not compel the conclusion that the BIA’s determination here

was unreasonable.

      2.     Substantial evidence also supports the denial of withholding of

removal for Gomez Palacios. See Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 719 (9th Cir.

2021) (setting forth standard for withholding of removal).

      For the particular social group of her family, the nexus requirement for

withholding of removal is less demanding than the nexus requirement for asylum.

While the asylum statute states that the protected ground must be “one central

reason” for the persecution, the withholding statute uses only “a reason.” Barajas-

Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–59 (9th Cir. 2017). Nonetheless, for the same

reasons stated above, supra pg. 2-3, evidence does not compel the conclusion that

Gomez Palacios’ familial relationship was “a reason” for her persecution.

      For the particular social group of “persons who have provided information to

authorities investigating cartel members,” “[t]he ‘more likely than not’ standard for

withholding of removal is ‘more stringent’ than the ‘reasonable possibility’

standard for asylum, and therefore an applicant who is unable to show a

‘reasonable possibility’ of future persecution ‘necessarily fails to satisfy the more

                                         4                                     21-876
stringent standard for withholding of removal.’” Silva, 993 F.3d at 719 (citation

omitted).

      3.     Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief for

Gomez Palacios. The evidence does not compel the conclusion that Gomez

Palacios will more likely than not be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a

public official if removed to Mexico. See Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1067 (setting forth

standard for CAT relief).

      4.     The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        5                                     21-876
                                                                        FILED
Gomez Palacios v. Garland, No. 21-876                                    SEP 29 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
OWENS, Circuit Judge, dissenting:                                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

      I respectfully dissent. I would grant the petition and remand for several

reasons.

      First, regarding the agency’s finding that Gomez Palacios failed to establish

past persecution because she did not show a nexus between her kidnapping and the

protected ground of her family, I think that the kidnapping of nearly twenty family

members from at least two different homes is strong circumstantial evidence that

the family was targeted and the kidnapping was not random violence. Neither the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) nor immigration judge (“IJ”) addressed the

important fact that the family members were abducted from multiple homes.

      Second, regarding the agency’s finding that Gomez Palacios failed to

establish a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her membership in the

particular social group of “persons who have provided information to authorities

investigating cartel members,” I think that the agency failed to adequately consider

and distinguish the prior grants of asylum to Gomez Palacios’ family members

who were kidnapped along with Gomez Palacios and her two derivative daughters.

      For example, the record reflects that Gomez Palacios’ nephew, Ruben, who

was among the kidnapped family members, was granted asylum by the BIA in

2017. There, the BIA concluded that the IJ “committed legal error and clear

                                         1
factual error in determining that [Ruben] does not have a well-founded fear of

persecution based on his membership in a particular social group comprised of

persons who have provided information to authorities investigating cartel

members.” The BIA noted that Ruben “and his other family members share the

experience of the kidnapping and a dramatic rescue, and they provided statements

against and identified some of their kidnappers. . . . [They] had their personally

identifiable information and photographs broadcast nationally in Mexico.” The

BIA stated that “whatever the reasons for the Bernal family’s [kidnapping] in

January of 2015, the family now faces persecution in Mexico based upon their

cooperation with the Mexican authorities.” The BIA determined that Ruben had

“established at least a well-founded fear that he would be targeted for his family’s

cooperation in assisting the government prosecute[] these [cartel] members.” In

addition, the BIA concluded that Ruben had established that the source of his

persecution consisted of forces the Mexican government was either unable or

unwilling to control because the Mexican government specifically told him that

they could not protect him and his family from future attacks.

      The record also reflects that Gomez Palacios’ daughter, Delia, was granted

asylum in 2016 (by the same IJ involved here) “[b]ased upon BIA decision.” The

BIA’s decision for Delia, which can be located on the publicly available Executive

Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) website, indicates that the BIA granted

                                          2
Delia asylum (and reversed the same IJ involved here) for essentially the same

reasons that it granted Ruben asylum. In addition, Gomez Palacios’ asylum

application noted that her son Raul had previously been granted asylum. The

BIA’s decision for Raul, which can be located on the EOIR website, indicates that

Raul was granted asylum in 2016 for essentially the same reasons that Ruben and

Delia were, and the BIA reversed the same IJ involved here. The same is true for

Delia’s partner Victor.

      The IJ appeared to distinguish these prior grants of asylum to Gomez

Palacios’ family members who were kidnapped along with Gomez Palacios and

her two derivative daughters on the basis of a passing comment from Gomez

Palacios’ daughter that one of her brothers (i.e., Gomez Palacios’ son) had returned

to Mexico. During her testimony, Gomez Palacios’ daughter, Maria de los

Angeles, mentioned that her brother “was detained and he just couldn’t tolerate it

anymore” and “so he returned back and went with my aunt.” But there were no

further questions about her brother’s return to Mexico; Maria de los Angeles was

not asked what her brother’s name was, whether he was among the family

members kidnapped with Gomez Palacios, or what his experience had been since

his return. Nonetheless, the IJ noted that Gomez Palacios’ son, “who was also part

of the group that was kidnapped,” had returned to Mexico, and there was no

evidence that he had been harmed upon his return. The BIA likewise noted that

                                         3
Gomez Palacios’ “son, who was also kidnapped with [her,] has returned to Mexico

and lives safely with an aunt.”

      However, it is unclear if the son who returned to Mexico was among the

group that was kidnapped. It appears that Gomez Palacios had two sons, only one

of whom (Raul) was among the group that was kidnapped, and as noted above,

Raul was previously granted asylum in 2016, and therefore it was most likely her

other son who returned to Mexico. If Gomez Palacios’ son who returned to

Mexico was not among the group that was kidnapped, he is not similarly situated

to Gomez Palacios. Likewise, the aunt and Gomez Palacios’ husband, who live in

Mexico, are not similarly situated to Gomez Palacios because there is no evidence

that they were among the group that was kidnapped.

      Finally, from the publicly available EOIR website, it appears that after the

IJ’s decision here, nine other family members who were kidnapped along with

Gomez Palacios and her two derivative daughters have been granted asylum,

bringing to thirteen the total number of Gomez Palacios’ kidnapped family who

have been granted relief.

      I urge the Government to use the many tools at its disposal to help Gomez

Palacios and her two derivative daughters and address this disparate result.

                                         4