Court Opinion

ID: 9403164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 17:00:50.135952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:05.077461
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 20 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LLULION VAZQUEZ-MATUL,                          No.   20-70162

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A208-196-613

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

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted June 8, 2022**
                                 Anchorage, Alaska

Before: HURWITZ, BRESS, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Llulion Vazquez-Matul, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of

an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of

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

      *
             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 BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060,

1066 (9th Cir. 2021), 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). “Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N.

Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994) and also provides its own review of the evidence and law,

we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479,

481 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

      1.     To be eligible for asylum, “the 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” his persecution.           8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir.

2021) (“The applicant must demonstrate a nexus between her past or feared harm

and a protected ground.”).

      Vazquez-Matul argues that he will be persecuted based on membership in the

particular social group of his “family” because his grandfather and uncle were killed

in Guatemala and because he was bullied. The BIA assumed that Vazquez-Matul’s

proposed family-based social group is cognizable but agreed with the IJ that the

record did not establish that Vazquez-Matul would be persecuted in Guatemala on

that basis. Substantial evidence supports that determination. Although the murders

                                         2
of his relatives were tragic, Vazquez-Matul and his mother both testified that they

do not know who killed his grandfather or uncle and do not know why they had been

killed. Nor did Vazquez-Matul present evidence establishing why his family, in

particular, would be targeted in the future. A fear of generalized crime and violence

or poor conditions in Guatemala does not supply the required nexus. See Zetino v.

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that attacks that are

motivated by “random violence” bear no nexus to a protected ground).1

      2.     Vazquez-Matul failed to make any colorable argument or cite any

authority regarding the denial of withholding of removal or CAT protection in his

opening brief. We therefore decline to reach those issues. See Martinez-Serrano v.

INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). The BIA also found that Vazquez-Matul

failed to meaningfully challenge the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT

relief before the Board on appeal, and Vazquez-Matul has not shown any error in

that determination.

      PETITION DENIED.

1
 Vazquez-Matul raises various additional arguments in support of his asylum claim,
but we limit ourselves to nexus, which was the BIA’s basis for denying relief. See
Garcia, 988 F.3d at 1142 (“In reviewing the BIA’s decisions, we consider only the
grounds relied upon by that agency.”).

                                         3