Court Opinion

ID: 9890175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 17:01:38.538371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:39.237549
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 12 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LILIAN KORINA LOPEZ-RAMIREZ,                    No. 21-1209
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A208-762-952
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted October 6, 2023**
                               Seattle, Washington

Before: WARDLAW and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MATSUMOTO, Senior
District Judge.***

      Lilian Korina Lopez-Ramirez, a native and a citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing her appeal

      *
             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 Kiyo A. Matsumoto, United States Senior District
Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. Because the parties are

familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide

context to our ruling.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Lopez-Ramirez’s

prior experiences, individually and cumulatively, do not establish harm rising to the

level of past persecution. See Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1073 (9th Cir.

2023) (setting forth the standard for asylum based on past persecution). Lopez-

Ramirez’s experiences do not suggest a sustained pattern of harm. Although Lopez-

Ramirez testified that she was verbally, psychologically, and physically abused by

her boyfriend and her boyfriend’s wife, there was no evidence that she suffered

serious injuries or that there was a continued pattern of actual or threatened harm or

violence. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2021). This abuse

does not constitute past persecution.

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Lopez-

Ramirez did not provide sufficient evidence that Guatemalan society recognized her

proposed social groups of “Guatemalan women deemed defenseless [who] are

1
 Although the removal proceedings include Lopez-Ramirez’s minor daughter, her
daughter is not a part of the petition for review. Her daughter is included on and is
derivative of Lopez-Ramirez’s request for asylum.

                                        2                                   21-1209
considered property of the men where they live,” and “family, and in particular, the

petitioner’s relationship to her child and the father of her child.” See Villegas

Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[Petitioner’s]

proposed groups are not set apart, or distinct, from other persons within the society

in some significant way.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The

Country Conditions Reports address the widespread problem of violence against

women in Guatemala but do not demonstrate that Lopez-Ramirez’s proposed groups

are recognized in Guatemalan society as a “discrete class of persons.” Id.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Lopez-Ramirez

did not establish that Guatemalan authorities were unable or unwilling to protect her.

See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (petitioner did

not establish that the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to control

private persecution). Lopez-Ramirez testified that she never went to the police to

report the incidents she experienced because the police “don’t do anything.” This

assertion does not establish, let alone compel, a conclusion that reporting would have

been futile or dangerous or that Guatemalan authorities were unwilling or unable to

protect Lopez-Ramirez. See id. Further, the Country Conditions Reports do not

compel the conclusion that the Guatemalan government would be unwilling or

unable to assist or protect Lopez-Ramirez. Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d

1062, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2020) (concluding, based on analogous facts and Country

                                        3                                    21-1209
Conditions Reports, that “substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination

that had [Petitioner] reported her abuse, the Guatemalan government could have

protected her”).

      Moreover, substantial evidence supports the agency’s alternative findings that

Lopez-Ramirez did not establish that she has a well-founded fear of persecution

because (a) Lopez-Ramirez’s fear of future persecution was not objectively

reasonable, as persecutors expressed no continuing interest in her or her child and

explicitly ceased contact with her; and (b) Lopez-Ramirez did not establish that she

could not reasonably relocate within Guatemala, considering that her previous

mistreatment was limited to the country’s San Marcos region. See Kaur v. Garland,

2 F.4th 823, 836 (9th Cir. 2021) (a petitioner must establish that she could not

reasonably relocate if she has not established past persecution).

      Finally, the BIA correctly denied withholding of removal after finding that

Lopez-Ramirez had not satisfied the lower burden of proof for asylum. See Villegas-

Sanchez, 990 F.3d at 1183 (“A failure to satisfy the lower standard of proof required

to establish eligibility for asylum therefore necessarily results in a failure to

demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation.”) (citation omitted). The BIA

also correctly found that she waived her opportunity to appeal the IJ’s unfavorable

determination of her eligibility for CAT relief by failing to specifically contest the

determination.

                                        4                                   21-1209
PETITION DENIED.

                   5   21-1209