Court Opinion

ID: 9907560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 18:01:20.465519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:59:53.396194
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED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

JOSE SILVINO COLORADO                           No. 22-1990
HERNANDEZ; YOSEF MISAEL                         Agency Nos.
MORENO SALAZAR; SAORY IRANY                     A201-496-726
SALAZAR ALVAREZ; TAEMY ZOE                      A201-496-728
COLORADO SALAZAR; YARIANA
                                                A201-496-731
YAMILETH MORENO
                                                A201-496-732
SALAZAR; DAFINE GUADALUPE                       A201-496-730
MORENO SALAZAR; KARINA                          A201-496-729
SALAZAR ALVAREZ,                                A201-496-727
             Petitioners,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted December 4, 2023**
                                Seattle, Washington

Before: N.R. SMITH, SANCHEZ, and MENDOZA, 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).
      Petitioners are a family of Mexican nationals1 seeking review of a Board of

Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s

denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against

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

for review.2

      Petitioners concede they are removable, and acknowledge they bear the

burden of demonstrating eligibility for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). We

review the agency’s determinations of ineligibility for asylum, withholding of

removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence, and “reverse . . . only where ‘any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Hussain

v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 646 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).

Petitioners challenge the agency’s conclusion that they failed to establish past

persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, based on membership in

a particular social group, namely as members of their family or as imputed owners

of a family member’s business.3

      1
        Jose Silvino Colorado Hernandez, the lead petitioner, and his common-law
spouse Karina Salazar Alvarez are the parents of the remaining petitioners, who are
derivative applicants for relief.
      2
        Petitioners’ concurrently filed motion to stay removal is denied as moot.
      3
        To the extent that Petitioners had presented other particular social groups
as potential grounds for their asylum claim, they have not done so on appeal, and
so have forfeited any such arguments. See Olea-Serefina v. Garland, 34 F.4th 856,
867 (9th Cir. 2022).

                                        2                                   22-1990
      Petitioners must show that they were “individually targeted on account of a

protected ground.” Hussain, 985 F.3d at 641–42. Their testimony, however, did

not establish any act that singled them out on account of a protected ground.

Rather, it established only that their family member’s business had been targeted

for refusing to pay extortion. Although Petitioners had been employed at the

business, which ceased operation after the extortion attempt, they testified that they

were not targets of persecution during the following months while they remained

in Mexico. Petitioners have established a credible “desire to be free from

harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence,” but have not

demonstrated past persecution based on a protected ground. Zetino v. Holder, 622

F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).

      Petitioners have also failed to establish a likelihood of future persecution

based on membership in the asserted social groups: they have presented no

evidence that other employees of the business or members of their family who

continue to live in Mexico have experienced persecution, see Kaur v. Garland, 2

F.4th 823, 835 (9th Cir. 2021) (weighing “safety of similarly situated members of

the family who remained in the country of origin”), nor that those who attempted

to extort their family member’s business have any knowledge of Petitioners’

familial or business relationship. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s conclusion that Petitioners had not established eligibility for asylum.

                                        3                                    22-1990
      Petitioners likewise failed to meet their burden as to withholding of removal,

which requires showing a “clear probability of future persecution.” Gutierrez-Alm

v. Garland, 62 F.4th 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2023). Because Petitioners did not

establish a likelihood of future persecution, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s conclusion that Petitioners had not established eligibility for withholding

of removal.

      On appeal, Petitioners presented only a conclusory allegation that they are

eligible for CAT relief and have offered no “factual detail or legal argument.”

Olea-Serefina, 34 F.4th at 867. Accordingly, their argument for CAT relief is

forfeited. See id.

      PETITIONS DENIED.

                                        4                                   22-1990