Court Opinion

ID: 9378526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 19:01:06.550433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:21.888145
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSI DALIA SANCHEZ-BARRERA,                     No.    21-123
REGILSON ALEXANDER LEMUS-
SANCHEZ,                                        Agency Nos.      A202-131-172
                                                /                A202-131-173
                Petitioners,

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted March 8, 2023**
                                 Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Rosi Dalia Sanchez-Barrera, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

      *
             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).
(CAT). Sanchez-Barrera’s son, Regilson Alexander Lemus-Sanchez, also a citizen

of Guatemala, is a derivative applicant in Sanchez-Barrera’s asylum claim only.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

      Our review is confined to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the

BIA incorporates the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision as its own. Molina-

Estrada v. I.N.S., 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002). We review the BIA’s

factual findings for substantial evidence, and “must uphold the agency

determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-

Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).

      Sanchez-Barrera alleges that the mayor of her municipality in Guatemala

was involved in the murders of three family members and two incidents where she

observed men searching around her home. She argues that the mayor’s alleged

motivation to harm her proposed particular social group— “members of the Lemus

family”—constitutes a compelling showing of past persecution, fear of future

persecution, and likelihood of torture to support a grant of asylum, withholding of

removal, and CAT relief. Her arguments are not persuasive.

      1.     To be eligible for asylum, the applicant must demonstrate that she has

suffered “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,

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

opinion.” Id. While “the family remains the quintessential particular social

                                          2
group,” Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015), an applicant still has

the burden to prove that a nexus exists between the alleged persecution and

familial association. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890-91 (9th

Cir. 2021). An applicant seeking withholding of removal “must satisfy a more

stringent standard” of demonstrating that it is “more likely than not” that she would

suffer future persecution on account of a protected ground if she returned to her

native country. Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029.

      Assuming that “members of the Lemus family” is a cognizable social

group,1 Sanchez-Barrera has failed to establish that the alleged murders of her

family members or incidents around her home were on account of membership in

the Lemus family. The BIA reasonably concluded that there was no compelling

evidence of animus against the Lemus family during these incidents. Rather, the

record reflects that the family members were murdered for unknown reasons or for

reasons separate from familial association, such as an ongoing business rivalry or

political differences. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010)

(holding that petitioner failed to prove a nexus where there was no evidence that

his family members were murdered on account of a protected ground and where

1
      Given the lack of a nexus between the alleged past persecution and
“members of the Lemus family,” we need not address whether Sanchez-Barrera’s
proposed familial social group is cognizable. See Santos-Ponce, 987 F.3d at 891,
n.3.

                                         3
petitioner testified to a separate motivation for murders).

       Also, Sanchez-Barrera offers no evidence to support her assertions that

either her or her son’s membership in the Lemus family was “one central reason”

or even “a reason” that the men were allegedly searching around her home. See

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (drawing no

distinction between the asylum statute’s “one central reason” phrase and the

withholding of removal statute’s lesser “a reason” phrase when there is “no nexus

at all”).

       Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Sanchez-

Barrera did not establish a well-founded fear or likelihood of future persecution on

account of association with her husband’s family because members of the family—

including three of Sanchez-Barrera’s children and her husband’s parents—continue

to safely live in Guatemala without persecution. See Aruta v. I.N.S., 80 F.3d 1389,

1395 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding evidence that “similarly situated members of the

petitioner’s family continued to reside without incident” in petitioner’s native

country substantially supports denial of asylum).

       Because Petitioners failed to establish that the alleged murders or incidents

around their home occurred on account of membership in the Lemus family, we

affirm the BIA’s denial of Petitioners’ application for asylum and Sanchez-

Barrera’s application for withholding of removal.

                                          4
      2.       Sanchez-Barrera has not made the requisite showing for CAT relief

because she has not established “that she will more likely than not be tortured with

the consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed to her native country.”

Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).2 Neither Sanchez-

Barrera’s generalized country reports of corruption nor the news article detailing a

feud between the mayor and a separate, unidentified “Lemus-Perez family”

compels the conclusion that the mayor or any other government official in

Guatemala would consent to or acquiesce in Sanchez-Barrera’s torture if she

returned to Guatemala. See B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 845 (9th Cir. 2022)

(finding that generalized country reports and news clippings were insufficient to

establish that the government would acquiesce in the torture of a specific

petitioner).

      The petition is DENIED.

2
       Although Sanchez-Barrera contends that the BIA failed to address her
allegations that the mayor was behind the murders and home incidents, the BIA’s
opinion agreed with the IJ’s decision, which specifically addressed Sanchez-
Barrera’s allegations concerning the mayor.

                                          5