Court Opinion

ID: 9945287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 18:01:45.232387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:25.861638
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 27 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LORENZA LUCAS MANUEL; NANCY                     No. 22-1433
GUADALUPE MENDOZA                               Agency Nos.
LUCAS; KIMBERLY YANETH                          A208-306-835
MENDOZA LUCAS,                                  A208-306-837
                                                A208-306-836
             Petitioners,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted January 8, 2024**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, MELLOY ***, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      *
             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 Michael J. Melloy, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, sitting by designation.
      Lorenza Lucas Manuel and two derivative petitioners, all natives and

citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA) dismissal of their appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ),

which denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.

      “[O]ur review of BIA decisions is highly deferential.” Parussimova v.

Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2009). We will reverse the BIA’s denial of

asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief only where the record evidence

compels a different result. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.

2014).

      1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lucas Manuel

does not qualify for asylum. To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must establish

that they are a “refugee” as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A); Parussimova, 555 F.3d at 738. A person may qualify as

a “refugee” if they previously faced “persecution” or have “a well-founded fear of

persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular

social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).

      The BIA concluded that Lucas Manuel failed to present evidence that she

had previously faced persecution in Guatemala. The BIA also found that Lucas

                                        2
Manuel did not demonstrate she would face future persecution in Guatemala on

account of her membership in a particular social group. The BIA rejected Lucas

Manuel’s first proposed social group, “Guatemalans returning with perceived

wealth,” determining it was too broad and therefore not cognizable for asylum

purposes. Lucas Manuel’s second proposed social group was based on her

relationship with her father. Lucas Manuel alleged that her father had been killed

but presented no testimony that she was threatened with future harm on account of

her relationship with him. Finally, Lucas Manuel claimed she would face future

persecution on account of her indigenous race but again failed to support her claim

with sufficient evidence. We conclude that the BIA’s denial of asylum was

supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, we deny Lucas Manuel’s petition

for review of her asylum claim.

      2. The BIA also determined that Lucas Manuel did not qualify for

withholding of removal on the same grounds as her asylum claim. “For both

asylum and withholding claims, a petitioner must prove a causal nexus between

one of her statutorily protected characteristics and either her past harm or her

objectively tenable fear of future harm.” Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th

1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). Because we affirm the BIA’s finding that Lucas

Manuel did not show she had faced or would face persecution in connection with

any protected group, we conclude the BIA correctly denied withholding of

                                         3
removal.

      3. We also find that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Lucas

Manuel’s CAT claim. To be eligible for CAT relief, a person “must establish that

‘it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the

proposed country of removal.’” Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033 (citing 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.16(c)(2)). The BIA determined that Lucas Manuel’s torture claim rested on

mere assumptions and a generalized fear of potential torture—she had neither

suffered past torture nor presented evidence that she was a target for future torture.

Thus, the BIA found that Lucas Manuel failed to show it was more likely than not

she would face torture upon return to Guatemala. Id. We find substantial evidence

supports the BIA’s conclusion.

      DENIED.

                                         4