Court Opinion

ID: 9940232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 18:01:18.697367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:39.652826
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                              FEB 13 2024
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SIMONA CARRILLO-                                 No. 22-1097
PABLO; FRANKY MIKAEL JACINTO-
CARRILLO,                                        Agency Nos.
                                                 A208-196-561
              Petitioners,                       A208-196-562

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                        Department of Homeland Security

                             Submitted February 8, 2024**
                                Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, BUMATAY, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

      Simona Carrillo-Pablo and Franky Mikael Jacinto-Carrillo, natives and

citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)

      *
             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).
determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that they did not have a reasonable fear

of persecution or torture in Guatemala and are not entitled to relief from their

reinstated order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence,

Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2018), and we deny the petition

for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that petitioners failed to

show that Guatemalan gang members harmed Carrillo-Pablo on account of a

protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.31(c), 1208.31(c); Zetino v. Holder, 622

F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (a noncitizen’s “desire to be free from harassment

by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no

nexus to a protected ground”). Although petitioners now claim that Carrillo-Pablo

was targeted because she was an unmarried, indigenous mother, petitioners

acknowledge that they did not propose this particular social group below, see 8

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (a petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies), and do

not identify support in the record for their contention.

      Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that petitioners

failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or

acquiescence of the government if petitioners were returned to Guatemala. See 8

                                           2
C.F.R. §§ 208.18(a)(1), 208.31(c), 1208.31(c); Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828

F.3d 829, 836-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (denying a petition for review of an application

for relief under the Convention Against Torture where a petitioner failed to

demonstrate government acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable

possibility of future torture). Petitioners’ contention to the contrary is conclusory

and unsupported by the record.

      In light of intervening authority, the government has appropriately

withdrawn its contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this petition

because it was untimely. See Alonso-Juarez v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1039, 1046 (9th

Cir. 2023). The petition was timely because it was filed within 30 days of the

conclusion of petitioners’ reasonable fear proceedings. Id. at 1047, 1051.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                           3