Case: 22-1054, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 30.1, Page 1 of 5 FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSA GLORIA CABRERA No. 22-1054 CALDERON, JUAN ALEXANDER JIMENEZ CABRERA, Agency Nos. A208-599-355 A208-599-356 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2023** Portland, Oregon Before: RAWLINSON, BEA and SUNG, Circuit Judges. * 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). Case: 22-1054, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 30.1, Page 2 of 5 Rosa Gloria Cabrera Calderon (Calderon) and her minor son, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. When the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), adopting the IJ’s decision, and also provides its own reasoning, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Ruiz-Colmenares v.Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s determination that a petitioner has failed to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. See Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022), as amended. To prevail under this standard, “the petitioner must show that the evidence not only supports, but compels the conclusion that these findings and decisions are erroneous.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners failed to establish past persecution. We have held that “[v]iolence against family members . . . may support an applicant’s asylum claim.” Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th Cir. 2004), as amended (citations omitted). Nevertheless, 2 Case: 22-1054, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 30.1, Page 3 of 5 violence against family members “must be part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to the petitioner.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2021) (citations, alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). The record fails to compel the conclusion that the harm Calderon’s family endured was closely tied to Petitioners. See id. 2. Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because they could have relocated to another part of Mexico. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019). Calderon testified that she had family in Tijuana and “maybe” she could live there. And she acknowledged that her mother and sisters have lived without incident in Uruapan for several years. 3. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Petitioners were not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals