Court Opinion

ID: 9400848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 17:01:26.706295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.426386
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             JUN 9 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA MACHIC LOPEZ DE                           No. 22-1412
SANCHEZ; MAYRI KATHERINE                        Agency Nos.
SANCHEZ-MACHIC,                                 A216-578-164
                                                A216-578-165
             Petitioners,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                             Submitted June 6, 2023 **
                                Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Maria Martha Machic-Lopez de Sanchez and her minor daughter M.S.M.,

natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal from an

      *
            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).
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Petitioner’s application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”).1 We have 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 she experienced, or

fears in Guatemala, and a protected ground. While Petitioner provided evidence

that she was robbed several times, including once when she was with M.S.M.,

she pointed to no evidence compelling the conclusion that those incidents 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 harassment by

criminals motivated by theft . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground”). We

therefore deny the petition as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims. 2

See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The lack of a

nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of his asylum and withholding of

removal claims.”).

      1
         Because M.S.M. is a derivative applicant on her mother’s application
for relief, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A), and she did not file her own
application, we focus on her mother’s application in this memorandum
disposition. See Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 99, 1001 n.1 (9th Cir. 2001).
       2
         We do not consider Petitioner’s additional arguments, because the lack
of nexus is dispositive and our review is limited to the grounds the BIA relied
upon. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating general rule
that courts and agencies are not required to make findings on nondispositive
issues); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining
that this court’s review is limited to the grounds upon which the BIA relied).

                                          2
      2.     Regarding Petitioner’s application for CAT protection, 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 she 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). Petitioner’s brief attributes

the harm she experienced to the “narco-cartel,” or “narco-terrorists” and argues

that country conditions evidence indicates that the “narco-cartels are acting with

[the] consent and acquiescence of government authorities.” Petitioner, however,

fails to cite any record evidence indicating that she was harmed by the “narco-

cartel,” and the record indicates that she did not know who the perpetrators were

or if they belonged to a gang.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                         3