Court Opinion

ID: 9840246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 17:00:45.090327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:11:29.601811
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       SEP 15 2023
                                                                   MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA LILIA MURGA-LOPEZ; OSCAR                No. 22-1427
URIEL ROMERO-MURGA; MARTIN                    Agency Nos.
ROMERO-REYES; JESUS EDUARDO                   A209-168-636
ROMERO-MURGA,                                 A209-168-637
                                              A209-168-675
            Petitioners,
                                              A209-168-676
 v.
                                              MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

            Respondent.

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

                       Submitted September 13, 2023**
                             Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GOULD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Maria Lilia Murga-Lopez, Martin Romero-Reyes, Jesus Eduardo Romero-

Murga, and Oscar Uriel Romero-Murga (“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of

Mexico, seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order

      *
            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).
dismissing their appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that

denied their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. 1 We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Guo v.

Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018), we deny the petition.

      1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Petitioners’ asylum claim.

To qualify for asylum, an applicant “must establish that race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at

least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”                  8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). In other words, an applicant must show a nexus between the

harm experienced or feared and one of the listed protected grounds. Garcia v.

Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021).

      Petitioners allege that they will face persecution because of their “family

membership.” Although family can be a social group under § 1158(b)(1), a

petitioner must show that the “persecution was or will be on account of his

membership in such group.” Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.

2011). The agency’s conclusion that Petitioners did not establish the required

nexus was supported by substantial evidence. Maria Murga-Lopez testified that

Petitioners were targeted because of their business ownership and that the

extortion stopped when Petitioners closed the business. This supports the BIA

      1
        Petitioners also applied for relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Petitioners do not contest the BIA’s conclusion that this was waived.

                                         2                                    22-1427
and IJ’s findings that the motivation for targeting Petitioners was economic—not

because of their membership in a particular social group.

      Petitioners suggest the BIA’s decision contradicts Ayala v. Sessions, 855

F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2017). We disagree. In Ayala, we ruled that extortion could

constitute persecution, but that a showing of nexus was still required to satisfy

the requirements for withholding of removal. 855 F.3d at 1021. Here, the record

supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners were targeted for economic

reasons, not because of their familial ties.

      2. Because Petitioners have not met their burden of proof for asylum,

substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal.

Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2020) (“An applicant who fails to

satisfy the lower standard for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more

demanding standard for withholding of removal.”).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                          3                                22-1427