NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSI DALIA SANCHEZ-BARRERA, No. 21-123 REGILSON ALEXANDER LEMUS- SANCHEZ, Agency Nos. A202-131-172 / A202-131-173 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Rosi Dalia Sanchez-Barrera, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (CAT). Sanchez-Barrera’s son, Regilson Alexander Lemus-Sanchez, also a citizen of Guatemala, is a derivative applicant in Sanchez-Barrera’s asylum claim only. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. Our review is confined to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the BIA incorporates the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision as its own. Molina- Estrada v. I.N.S., 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002). We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence, and “must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). Sanchez-Barrera alleges that the mayor of her municipality in Guatemala was involved in the murders of three family members and two incidents where she observed men searching around her home. She argues that the mayor’s alleged motivation to harm her proposed particular social group— “members of the Lemus family”—constitutes a compelling showing of past persecution, fear of future persecution, and likelihood of torture to support a grant of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Her arguments are not persuasive. 1. To be eligible for asylum, the applicant must demonstrate that she has suffered “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Id. While “the family remains the quintessential particular social 2 group,” Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015), an applicant still has the burden to prove that a nexus exists between the alleged persecution and familial association. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2021). An applicant seeking withholding of removal “must satisfy a more stringent standard” of demonstrating that it is “more likely than not” that she would suffer future persecution on account of a protected ground if she returned to her native country. Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029. Assuming that “members of the Lemus family” is a cognizable social group,1 Sanchez-Barrera has failed to establish that the alleged murders of her family members or incidents around her home were on account of membership in the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals