NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 28 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CATARINA DE LEON No. 21-1153 GERONIMO; EMILY JOSEFIN DE Agency Nos. LEON; JENS OLIVER FRANCISCO DE A209-870-448 LEON, A209-870-486 A209-870-449 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 26, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Catarina De Leon Geronimo and her two minor children, E.J.D.L. and J.O.F.D.L., seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding * 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). of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioners assert that if they are removed to Guatemala, they will be persecuted and tortured because of their indigenous heritage. The BIA held that petitioners’ asylum and withholding-of-removal claims failed for lack of a nexus to a particular social group, and that their CAT claims failed because they did not show that it is more likely than not that they would be tortured if removed to Guatemala. We review legal questions de novo, and the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Singh v. Garland, 48 F.4th 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2022). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of petitioners’ asylum and withholding-of-removal claims. An applicant for asylum or withholding of removal must demonstrate a nexus between the persecution she suffered or fears and a protected ground. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 356–58 (9th Cir. 2017); Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142–43 (9th Cir. 2021). Specifically, an asylum applicant must show that the protected ground is “one central reason” for her persecution. Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 358; 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Meanwhile, the nexus standard for withholding of removal is “less demanding,” requiring the applicant to show only that the protected ground is “a reason” for her persecution. Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 360; 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C). Petitioners contend that they suffered harm that rises to the level of 2 21-1153 persecution because of their indigenous heritage when, sometime between 2014 and 2016, their neighbors destroyed their coffee plants and cut off access to their home’s electricity and water supply. And they argue that they experienced persecution again in 2016, after they had moved to another town approximately four hours away, when they received two separate threatening letters demanding that they pay money or be killed. But the record is devoid of any evidence to support the conclusion that petitioners were harmed or threatened because of their indigenous heritage. Indeed, De Leon Geronimo’s own testimony indicated that the neighbors …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals