NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 17 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS OMAR CRUZ-RAMIREZ, No. 17-71346 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-700-970 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and GWIN,*** District Judge. Carlos Cruz-Ramirez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) order dismissing his appeal, in which he challenged an * 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 James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition in part, deny it in part, and remand to the Board. Because the Board “conducted its own review of the evidence and law rather than simply adopting the immigration judge’s decision,” our review “is limited to the [Board’s] decision[.]” Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1. The Board determined that the harm was not caused “on account of” his particular social group because “the interest of the gang was to extort money from [Cruz-Ramirez and his] family,” and that the gang’s purpose for targeting Cruz- Ramirez was merely to further that interest. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual determination that Cruz-Ramirez failed to establish a nexus between the persecution he suffered and his membership in his family. While the gang’s threatening notes and phone calls and the eventual murder of his uncle were directed at Cruz-Ramirez’s family, it is not clear that the gang’s actions were connected to Cruz-Ramirez’s identity or affiliation with his family. Therefore, a “reasonable adjudicator would [not] be compelled to conclude” that Cruz- Ramirez’s membership in his particular social group was “a reason,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C), much less a “central reason,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), for the 2 gang’s persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019). Cruz-Ramirez’s other evidence, including the drive-by shooting at his friend’s house, is also insufficient to demonstrate that the agency erred in not determining that he was targeted “on account of” his membership in his family. Cruz-Ramirez argues that the Board’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims rests on the erroneous legal conclusion that “private acts of extortion cannot form the predicate for an asylum claim.” While the Board’s determination on this point technically conflicts with our precedents, see Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2017), the Board’s error was harmless because this ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals