Court Opinion

ID: 9957047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 16:01:06.66866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:05.347647
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 3 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORMA ANGELICA JIMENEZ                          No. 22-1864
ALEJANDRES; AMERICA NATALI                      Agency Nos.
MUNOZ JIMENEZ,                                  A209-395-034
                                                A209-395-035
             Petitioners,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                             Submitted April 1, 2024**
                                Portland, Oregon

Before: OWENS and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK, District
Judge.***

      *
             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 William Horsley Orrick, United States District Judge
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
      Norma Angelica Jimenez Alejandres (“Jimenez”), 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 (“IJ”) decision denying

her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The asylum application

of her daughter and co-petitioner, America Natali Munoz Jiminez, is derivative of

Jimenez’s application, and her daughter’s application for withholding of removal

depends on Jimenez’s application. “Because the BIA conducted a de novo review

of the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision except to the extent

that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted by the BIA.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988

F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks

omitted). The BIA’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and its factual

findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, meaning that its

determinations are upheld unless “the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.”

Id. (citation omitted). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount

them here. We deny the petition.

       1. Asylum applicants must demonstrate “persecution or a well-founded fear

of persecution on account of [a protected ground],” also known as the nexus

requirement. Id. at 1142-43 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)); see also Reyes v.

Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016). Applicants “must prove causal

connection” with direct or circumstantial evidence that the persecution was on

                                         2                                   22-1864
account of a protected ground. Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1486-87 (9th Cir.

1997).

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum based on its

determination that Jimenez failed to establish a nexus between past or future

persecution and her proposed particular social groups (immediate family members

of Eduardo Jimenez, her deceased son, or of Gerardo Alejandres, her cousin).

Regarding the murders of her son Eduardo and other family members, Jimenez

testified that she believed Eduardo was viewed as a rival cartel member and there

were no other reasons he would have been targeted. Further, Jimenez testified that

the cartel would want to harm her because she reported Eduardo’s kidnapping to

the police, not because of her family membership. Finally, Jimenez testified that

her other family members still living in Mexico have not been harmed. See

Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Ponce’s claim

of future persecution is undermined by the fact that he has other family members

living unharmed in Honduras.”).

      2. Withholding of removal applicants must demonstrate that “a cognizable

protected ground is ‘a reason’ for future persecution.” Garcia, 988 F.3d at 1146

(citation omitted).

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal

because Jimenez failed to establish any nexus between the alleged persecution and

                                       3                                   22-1864
her proposed particular social groups. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th

1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023) (noting that the nexus standard required for withholding

of removal is lower than for asylum, but when the petitioner has not shown “any

nexus whatsoever,” both claims fail).

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

The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        4                                 22-1864