Court Opinion

ID: 9963137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 17:01:46.147189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:41.360458
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 24 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACOBO ADAN GONZALEZ-                           No. 22-605
GARCIA; GLORIA LISBETH                          Agency Nos.
RECANCOJ-DOMINGUEZ; LARRY                       A208-866-294
ADAM GONZALEZ-RECANCOJ,                         A208-866-296
                                                A208-866-295
             Petitioners,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted April 12, 2024**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and LIBURDI, District
Judge.***

      *
             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 Michael T. Liburdi, United States District Judge for
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
      Jacobo Gonzalez-Garcia, his wife Gloria Recancoj-Dominguez, and their

child Larry Gonzalez-Recancoj (collectively, the Gonzalez-Garcias) are natives and

citizens of Guatemala. They petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying their

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition.

      “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both

decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018). We

review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, “meaning that the

determination must be supported by ‘reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence

on the record.’” De Leon v. Garland, 51 F.4th 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting

Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2018)). A finding is supported by

substantial evidence if “a reasonable factfinder” could have reached the same

conclusion. Id.; see Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2021).

      1.    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s determination that the

Guatemalan government would be willing and able to protect the Gonzalez-Garcias

from violent nonstate actors. After Jacobo Gonzalez-Garcia filed a report with the

Guatemalan Public Ministry, the Ministry asked the Civil National Police to provide

him with security and interview him at his home. The record does not indicate

whether the authorities ever identified or apprehended the individuals who

                                       2
threatened the Gonzalez-Garcias. But a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the

family did not provide the police with “sufficiently specific information to permit an

investigation or an arrest.” Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871, 878 (9th Cir. 2013). In his

report to the Public Ministry, Jacobo Gonzalez-Garcia did not identify his alleged

persecutors. He also testified before the IJ that the Gonzalez-Garcias moved to his

mother-in-law’s house on the same day he filed the report, and he did not say that

he provided the authorities with her address. And although the country conditions

reports attached to the Gonzalez-Garcias’ applications describe Guatemala’s

ongoing problems with organized crime, those reports also support the determination

that Guatemala has “demonstrate[d] efforts to subdue” criminal activity within its

borders. Hussain, 985 F.3d at 648.

      Because a reasonable factfinder on this record could reject the conclusion that

Guatemala is unable and unwilling to control violent nonstate actors, the Gonzalez-

Garcias have not met their burden for establishing eligibility for asylum. Because

they have not established a likelihood of future persecution for asylum purposes, the

Gonzalez-Garcias have also failed to demonstrate a “clear probability” of

persecution for withholding of removal. See Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1142

(9th Cir. 2020).

      2.     Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s and IJ’s denial of CAT

relief. A reasonable factfinder could conclude that the Gonzalez-Garcias did not

                                        3
meet their burden of showing that it is “more likely than not” that they would be

tortured in Guatemala with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. Garcia-

Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). Given the record evidence

that police were responsive to Jacobo Gonzalez-Garcia’s reports and that Guatemala

is “actively, albeit not entirely successfully, combat[ting] . . . illegal activities,” the

BIA was not compelled to conclude that Guatemalan officials were more likely than

not to acquiesce in acts of torture. Del Cid Marroquin v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 933, 937

(9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

PETITION DENIED.

                                           4