Court Opinion

ID: 9388033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 18:01:05.267502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:17.074692
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1054, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 30.1, Page 1 of 5

                                                                              FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                               APR 19 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSA GLORIA CABRERA                              No.   22-1054
CALDERON, JUAN ALEXANDER
JIMENEZ CABRERA,                                 Agency Nos. A208-599-355
                                                             A208-599-356
              Petitioners,
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                             Submitted April 17, 2023**
                                 Portland, Oregon

Before: RAWLINSON, BEA and SUNG, 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).
                Case: 22-1054, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 30.1, Page 2 of 5

       Rosa Gloria Cabrera Calderon (Calderon) and her minor son, natives and

citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ)

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

Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the

petition.

       When the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994),

adopting the IJ’s decision, and also provides its own reasoning, we review both the

IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Ruiz-Colmenares v.Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748

(9th Cir. 2022). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s determination

that a petitioner has failed to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of

removal, or CAT relief. See Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th

Cir. 2022), as amended. To prevail under this standard, “the petitioner must show

that the evidence not only supports, but compels the conclusion that these findings

and decisions are erroneous.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

       1.    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners

failed to establish past persecution. We have held that “[v]iolence against family

members . . . may support an applicant’s asylum claim.” Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383

F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th Cir. 2004), as amended (citations omitted). Nevertheless,

                                           2
                Case: 22-1054, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 30.1, Page 3 of 5

violence against family members “must be part of a pattern of persecution closely

tied to the petitioner.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2021)

(citations, alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). The record fails to

compel the conclusion that the harm Calderon’s family endured was closely tied to

Petitioners. See id.

      2.     Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Petitioners

failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because they could

have relocated to another part of Mexico. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d

1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019). Calderon testified that she had family in Tijuana and

“maybe” she could live there. And she acknowledged that her mother and sisters

have lived without incident in Uruapan for several years.

      3.     Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Petitioners were not

persecuted on account of membership in their family. See Zetino v. Holder, 622

F.3d 1007, 1015-1016 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended. Petitioners failed to establish

that family membership “was at least one central reason” they were persecuted. Id.

at 1015.

      4.     The determination that Petitioners failed to demonstrate they are

members of the particular social group of landowners is supported by substantial

evidence. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2016)

                                          3
                Case: 22-1054, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 30.1, Page 4 of 5

(discussing membership in a particular social group). Similarly, substantial

evidence supports the determination that Petitioners failed to establish that they

held an anti-gang political opinion. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738,

747 (9th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder,

707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (discussing lack of evidence to

establish anti-gang political opinion).

      5.     Generally, an applicant who fails to establish eligibility for asylum

necessarily fails to qualify for withholding of removal. See Sarkar v. Garland, 39

F.4th 611, 622 (9th Cir. 2022). However, we recently clarified that the “a reason”

nexus standard for withholding of removal is less demanding than the “one central

reason” nexus standard for asylum. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360

(9th Cir. 2017). The agency must apply the proper nexus standard in deciding

asylum and withholding of removal claims. See id. at 357-60. Here, the BIA cited

Barajas-Romero and explicitly referenced the correct nexus standards when

denying each requested relief.

      6.     Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because

Petitioners failed to demonstrate that they would more likely than not be tortured

with the acquiescence or consent of a public official. See B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th

827, 845 (9th Cir. 2022). “Generalized evidence of violence in a country is itself

                                           4
                Case: 22-1054, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 30.1, Page 5 of 5

insufficient to establish that anyone in the government would acquiesce to a

petitioner’s torture.” Id. (citation omitted).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                            5