Court Opinion

ID: 9367709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 18:00:50.606118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:02.834692
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 1 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRANDON ELIAS PEREZ-CARDONA,                     No.   18-72094

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A208-980-094

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

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted February 1, 2023**
                                San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Brandon Elias Perez-Cardona, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding

the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

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

      1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioner

failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in

Guatemala and a protected ground. Although Petitioner provided evidence that he

was beat up by gang members on two occasions, he offered no evidence that those

attacks were related to a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,

1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that an applicant’s “desire to be free from . . .

random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). We

therefore deny the petition as to the asylum and withholding claims. See Garcia v.

Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that an applicant for

asylum “must demonstrate a nexus between her past or feared harm and a protected

ground”); Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 7 F.4th 888, 892 (9th Cir. 2021) (“To

qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show that ‘it is more likely

than not that’ he would be persecuted because of a protected ground.” (quoting INS

v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 424 (1984)).

      2. Regarding Petitioner’s application for relief under the CAT, substantial

evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion, adopted by the BIA, that Petitioner

failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with

the acquiescence of a public official if returned to Guatemala. See Xochihua-

Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).

                                           2
PETITION DENIED.

                   3