NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FANNY NEREIDA PINEDA- No. 18-72964 BETANCOURT; et al., Agency Nos. A208-266-894 Petitioners, A208-266-895 A208-266-884 v. A208-266-885 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 1, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD, OWENS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Fanny Nereida Pineda-Betancourt (“Petitioner”) and her three minor children seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of her * 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). appeal.1 Petitioner argues that the Board erred in determining that she failed to establish past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution, in determining that the harm suffered was on account of a protected ground, and in denying her motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.2 First, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioner did not establish the requisite nexus between any feared harm and her membership in her proposed particular social group (“PSG”), comprised of family members of Petitioner’s partner Jeraldo Hernandez. See Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018) (“We review denials of asylum [and] withholding of removal … for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). The record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination that gangs targeted Petitioner and her late partner for money, rather than because of her proffered PSG. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting the substantial evidence “standard of review is extremely deferential: administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 1 As the Board noted, the co-petitioners are derivative beneficiaries of their mother’s asylum application, so all references to Petitioner herein will be to Fanny Nereida Pineda-Betancourt. 2 The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. 2 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Petitioner concedes that gang members threatened her and her children because she would not submit to their extortion demands.3 As the Board observed, the gangs only began targeting Petitioner after she assumed control of the shops. And the gangs also demanded extortion payments from her employees and other Honduran business owners, despite their lack of familial ties with her late partner. See Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder, 714 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“If someone suffers harm on grounds that are associated with group membership but also apply to many others, then the harm is not because of membership in a particular social group ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals