Court Opinion

ID: 9891773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 17:00:48.232053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:24.618306
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEFA LEON-LEON; MARIA LEON-                   No. 22-1295
LEON,                                           Agency Nos.
                                                A216-167-833
             Petitioners,                       A216-167-842
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted October 16, 2023**
                              San Francisco, California

Before: SILER, NGUYEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.***

      Petitioner Josefa Leon-Leon (“Josefa”) and her minor daughter Maria Leon-

Leon, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

      *
             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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the
Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, sitting by designation.
affirming an order denying their petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Josefa argues that the

brief kidnapping of two members of her extended family entitles her to stay in the

United States. We disagree and deny the petition for review.

      Josefa argues that the agency erred when it denied her petition for asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT protection. We review the BIA’s judgment under

the substantial evidence standard, and “the agency’s findings of fact are considered

conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary.” Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023)

(emphasis in original) (quotations omitted). Questions of law are reviewed de novo.

Id.

1.    To qualify for asylum, Josefa must establish that she is unwilling or unable to

return to Guatemala due to past “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution”

based on a protected category. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); Id. § 1158(b)(1)(A). To

qualify for withholding of removal, she must show a “clear probability” of such

persecution. Alvarez-Santos v. I.N.S., 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003); see also

8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Josefa failed to show

that the harms she suffered were in fact past “persecution” under either the asylum

or withholding standard. She testified that her brother was kidnapped in Mexico and

                                        2
the authorities did not investigate the matter because the family could not afford to

hire the professional help necessary to file a report. On another occasion, when her

partner’s cousin was kidnapped in Guatemala and held for three hours, the

government was alerted, investigated the matter, and arrested the perpetrator.

“[A]lthough harm to a petitioner’s close relatives, friends, or associates may

contribute to a successful showing of past persecution, it must be part of a pattern of

persecution closely tied to” Josefa herself. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1062

(9th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). Because Josefa did not establish that the kidnappings

were closely tied to her, the agency’s determination that Josefa suffered no past

persecution is supported by substantial evidence. Josefa does not separately claim

fear of future persecution. See id. at 1065 (a petitioner who cannot show past

persecution may be eligible for relief upon showing future persecution).

2.    Petitioners also allege error by the agency in denying CAT protection. To

obtain CAT protection, Josefa must establish that it is “more likely than not” that

she would be tortured if returned to Guatemala. 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(c)(2).

      The agency found that because Josefa had not been tortured in the past and

could relocate within the country, she did not qualify for CAT protection. Josefa

argues that Guatemala has a “long history of discrimination against persons such as

[Josefa],” and therefore she is entitled to CAT protection.         But the fact that

Guatemala struggles to suppress crime within its borders does not mean that Josefa

                                         3
has suffered torture—or will suffer torture—upon return there. Therefore, the

agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed.

      The petition is DENIED.

                                       4