Court Opinion

ID: 9406119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 21:02:07.62293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:26.993995
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                       FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       JUN 29 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUANA ANTONIO                                      No. 21-879
FRANCISCO; RICARDO ANDRES                          Agency Nos.
ANTONIO; PELEGRINA ANDRES                          A208-311-660
ANTONIO; JESICA ANTONIO                            A208-311-661
FRANCISCO; JUANA ANDRES
                                                   A208-311-662
ANTONIO; SEBASTIANA ANDRES
                                                   A208-311-663
ANTONIO,                                           A216-217-501
                                                   A216-217-502
                Petitioners,

     v.                                            MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                                Submitted June 26, 2023**
                                  Pasadena, California

Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

          Juana Antonio Francisco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration

*
  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).
Judge’s (IJ) denial of her request for relief from deportation under asylum,

withholding of removal, and the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The petition for review is denied.

      Francisco is a member of the indigenous Kanjobal tribe in Guatemala. She

entered the United States without valid immigration documentation on August

16, 2015, with some of her children, including one with a congenital heart

condition. Almost two years after her arrival, Francisco applied for asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT protection.

      The IJ concluded that the asylum filing was untimely and that Francisco

did not qualify for an exception to the one-year filing rule based on changed or

extraordinary circumstances. The IJ alternatively reached the merits of the

asylum and withholding claims, concluding that Francisco had not established

past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or any nexus to a

protected ground. For the same reasons, the IJ found her CAT claim failed. On

appeal, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision.

      This court reviews the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual

findings for substantial evidence. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742,

748 (9th Cir. 2022).

      First, Francisco argues that the agency had no jurisdiction over the removal

proceedings because the Notices to Appear (NTAs) did not include the date, time,

1
 In addition to relief for herself, Francisco seeks relief on behalf of five of her
children as derivative beneficiaries.

                                        2                                    21-879
or location of an initial hearing. Francisco and her children initially received

NTAs ordering their appearance “at a place and time to be determined,” or a date

“to be set,” but the immigration court later provided the particular date, time, and

place of the hearings. In a nearly identical case, the Ninth Circuit ruled en banc

that an NTA lacking the time and date of a petitioner’s removal hearing was still

sufficient to vest subject-matter jurisdiction in an immigration court. United

States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1194 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert.

denied, 143 S. Ct. 755 (2023). If the details are not included in the initial NTA,

the immigration court is required by statute to subsequently provide notice to the

parties. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(b). Here, Francisco and her children were notified

of the details in subsequent communications. All appeared at the proper time and

place. Accordingly, the agency properly exercised jurisdiction in this case.

      Second, Francisco argues that the agency erred in concluding (1) that she

and her children established neither past persecution nor likelihood of future

harm, and (2) that her claims also failed on nexus grounds. Francisco’s only

allegation of past persecution arises from her daughter’s medical care in

Guatemala.2 “Persecution is an extreme concept,” Ghaly v. I.N.S., 58 F.3d 1425,

1431 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and

2
 In Guatemala, Francisco’s daughter had been treated by doctors at a local clinic,
but the medication she was prescribed either “didn’t help her,” or only helped
“for two or three months.” The local doctors referred the daughter to Guatemala
City for surgery—a trip that was allegedly prohibitively expensive for Francisco.
After arriving in the United States, her daughter received heart valve surgery at a
children’s hospital in San Diego.

                                         3                                     21-879
Francisco’s family’s challenges with the medical system in Guatemala are

attributable to her lack of education and limited funds. Francisco fails to present

evidence of anything more than an “inadequate healthcare system” or

“[g]eneralized economic disadvantage,” neither of which rise to the level of

persecution. Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder, 714 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013)

(per curiam); Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 2011),

overruled in part by Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.

2017) (en banc). The record does not compel this panel to conclude otherwise.

      Francisco also fails to provide objective evidence supporting a reasonable

fear of future persecution. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1064–65

(9th Cir. 2003). Francisco presents (1) a general fear of kidnapping but no

“individualized risk,” see Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir.

2010); (2) an unsupported assertion that her daughter “will die in Guatemala,”

even though she received the surgery she needed in the United States; and (3) an

unsupported claim that there are no Kanjobal interpreters in Guatemala City,

which will make accessing healthcare difficult. Because unsupported assertions

do not constitute evidence, see I.N.S. v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188 n.6 (1984),

Francisco falls short of the required “well-founded fear of future persecution.”

Melkonian, 320 F.3d at 1068.

      Francisco’s claims also lack a “nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v.

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). She fails to present evidence that

her potential exposure to general crime and violence in Guatemala is tied to her

                                        4                                    21-879
Kanjobal identity; likewise, her daughter’s ineffective medical care is not linked

to ill motive or targeting on the basis of this proposed particular social group.

Francisco herself suggests that she could have accessed appropriate medical care

in Guatemala if she had an education and adequate funds.

      As to the CAT claim, see Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065

(9th Cir. 2020), Francisco raised the issue before the IJ and BIA but failed to

establish eligibility for protection. But she did not substantively address the issue

in her briefing here on appeal. Even assuming she did not forfeit the claim,

however, the agency’s conclusion that Francisco was not eligible for CAT relief

is supported by substantial evidence. For example, Francisco admitted to the BIA

that she had not been tortured in the past, and her fear of future harm to her and

her children is based only on general country conditions. See Delgado-Ortiz v.

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

      Finally, Francisco makes the conclusory argument that the agency violated

her family’s due process rights due to bias. Francisco provides no support for

these statements and fails to meaningfully articulate any actual error or prejudice.

See Olea-Serefina v. Garland, 34 F.4th 856, 866 (9th Cir. 2022). Such a broad,

unsupported allegation provides no basis for overturning the agency’s

determination.

      For these reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.

                                         5                                     21-879