Court Opinion

ID: 9375060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 20:00:44.65519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.488323
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

YOCSELI CARMONA SERRANO, ET AL                  No.    18-71551

                Petitioners,                    Agency Nos.       A209-165-715
                                                                  A209-165-716
 v.                                                               A209-165-717
                                                                  A209-165-718
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 21, 2023**

Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Yocseli Carmona Serrano, on behalf of herself and her three children, all

natives and citizens of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of

their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We review the agency’s

      *
             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).
factual findings for substantial evidence and review questions of law de novo.

Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

         1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum. Carmona’s

claim stems from a death threat and two incidents of extortion and kidnapping—one

in 2012 and the other in 2016. In 2012, after her family stopped paying unknown

gang members a quota, the gang murdered her cousin. By 2016, Carmona’s in-

laws—who worked in a market as merchants—resumed paying the quota. In 2016,

unknown men—allegedly gang members—kidnapped Carmona and her husband

and threatened to kill them if they did not pay a ransom. Carmona’s mother paid the

ransom, and the gang released Carmona in March 2016 while holding her husband

for three more months. No one reported the incidents to the police. Several months

later, Carmona left for the United States with her three children, fearing for their

lives.

         Carmona identifies her family as her proposed particular social group, so she

must establish that her familial relation “was or will be at least one central reason

for” her persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Carmona must establish that her

persecutors “would not have harmed [her] if that motive did not exist.” Parussimova

v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009).

         Carmona presented no evidence that her kidnappers targeted her based on

                                           2
family membership. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890–91 (9th Cir.

2021) (finding no nexus between gang violence and petitioner’s family membership

without evidence). The gang members said nothing about kidnapping Carmona

because of her family, and both sides of her family were extorted. And it’s unclear

whether Carmona’s family identity or extorting individuals with income was a

motivating factor. See Parussimova, 555 F.3d at 742. Despite Carmona’s fear of

gang violence in Mexico, a “desire to be free from . . . random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,

1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Because Carmona failed to establish a nexus between her

alleged persecution and her proposed particular social group of family, the record

does not compel reversal of the BIA. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

finding that Carmona failed to establish a sufficient nexus.

      2. Because “[a] failure to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to

establish eligibility for asylum therefore necessarily results in a failure to

demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation,” Carmona’s withholding

claim fails. Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000).1

      PETITION DENIED.

1
 Carmona raised a new due process argument for the first time on appeal. Since
we consider only the grounds relied upon by the BIA, it falls outside the scope of
our review. See Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020).

                                          3