Court Opinion

ID: 9410824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 18:01:00.05551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.590601
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUL 24 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISTINA VELASQUEZ-RAMOS,                       No. 22-718
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A209-873-771
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted July 20, 2023**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: NGUYEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,*** District
Judge.

      Cristina Velasquez-Ramos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the

immigration judge’s order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and

      *
            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).
      ***
              The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge
for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the agency’s factual findings for

substantial evidence, Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir.

2022), we deny the petition for review.

      1.     Velasquez-Ramos challenges the agency’s determination that she

failed to meet the nexus requirement for asylum and withholding of removal.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that gang members

targeted Velasquez-Ramos and her family because they perceived that they had

access to money. Velasquez-Ramos adduced no evidence that the gang

members’ economic motive for persecution relates to her proposed particular

social group of indigenous rural women with limited education.1 See

Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1019–20 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Where

the record indicates that the persecutor’s actual motivation for threatening a

person is to extort money . . . [it] does not compel finding that the persecutor

threatened the target because of a protected characteristic . . . .”).

      2.     Velasquez-Ramos next contends that the agency erred in denying

her claim for CAT protection. But substantial evidence supports the agency’s

determination that Velasquez-Ramos is not entitled to CAT relief because she

has failed to show that she is more likely than not to suffer torture in Guatemala.

See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). She adduced no record evidence supporting her

1
 We do not reach the question of whether Velasquez-Ramos’s proposed
particular social group is cognizable.

                                          2                                   22-718
claim that police would not protect her upon return to Guatemala. The distance

from her hometown to the nearest police station is not dispositive because

Velasquez-Ramos could relocate closer to a police station upon her return. See

id. § 208.16(c)(3) (providing non-exclusive list of considerations for granting

CAT relief, including the possibility of relocation to an area where petitioner is

not likely to be tortured).

      3.     Velasquez-Ramos raises a due process claim in her reply brief.

Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived. Autotel v. Nev.

Bell Tel. Co., 697 F.3d 846, 852 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                         3                                    22-718