FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 9 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDNA GRISELDA GARCIA No. 18-72255 PORTILLO; JORGE LUIS SORIA GARCIA; JOSE FRANCISCO SORIA Agency Nos. A208-311-721 GARCIA; MARLENE ZITLALI SORIA A208-311-744 GARCIA, A208-311-749 A208-311-750 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 5, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,*** 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 Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. Edna Garcia Portillo petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) holding that she is ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We deny the petition. During removal proceedings, Garcia Portillo argued that she had faced persecution in her home state of Michoacán, Mexico. A relative sexually abused her as a child. While working for a federal agency, she was robbed by armed members of a drug cartel. On another occasion, she encountered members of a cartel trying to burn down city hall. In early 2015, after her brother Julio Cesar joined a cartel, several men came to her father and demanded to know his location or they would “take the entire family and chop them up.” When Jose Luis, another of her brothers, left a cartel in October 2016, he was shot in the head. On a Facebook page that announced his murder, someone commented that “the only ones left to kill are [Jose Luis’] siblings.” We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). A finding is supported by substantial evidence unless “‘any 1 This memorandum refers to Garcia Portillo because she is lead petitioner, but her three children are derivative beneficiaries. 2 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary’ based on the evidence in the record.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Garcia Portillo failed to prove a nexus between harm and a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (providing that, to be eligible for asylum, “the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant”). The BIA permissibly concluded that Garcia Portillo’s abuse as a child, her encounters with robbers and arsonists, and the threats related to her brothers lack any connection to political opinion, a particular social group, or any other protected ground. Garcia Portillo’s abuse as a child ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals