Court Opinion

ID: 9407428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 22:00:53.430209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.257243
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            JUL 6 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WENDY JEANETH TZIQUIN-                          No. 21-788
GUACHIAC,                                       Agency No.
                                                A216-442-404
             Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                   On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              Immigration Judge

                            Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Wendy Jeaneth Tziquin-Guachiac, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under

8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g) that she did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or

torture in Guatemala and is not entitled to relief from her reinstated removal

order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative

      *
            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).
reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v.

Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.

      We do not disturb the IJ’s determination that Tziquin-Guachiac failed to

establish a reasonable possibility that she suffered harm that rises to the level of

persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009)

(petitioner’s past experiences, including two beatings, even considered

cumulatively, did not compel a finding of past persecution); see also Flores

Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve

whether de novo or substantial evidence review applies, where result would be

the same under either standard).

      Substantial evidence supports the determination that Tziquin-Guachiac

failed to show a reasonable possibility that the harm she fears would be on

account of a protected ground. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814

(9th Cir. 2018) (no basis for withholding of removal where petitioner did not

show a nexus to a protected ground). We reject as unsupported by the record

Tziquin-Guachiac’s contention that the IJ ignored issues or otherwise erred in

analyzing her claim.

      Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Tziquin-

Guachiac failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See

Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37 (petitioner failed to demonstrate

government acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of

                                         2                                     21-788
future torture).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in effect until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                      3                                   21-788