NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 28 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TRANCITO CASTANEDA DE LEON, No. 21-470 Agency No. Petitioner, A099-504-282 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. PAOLA DIEGO CASTANEDA, No. 21-471 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-097-231 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. ISABEL DIEGO CASTANEDA, No. 21-472 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-097-233 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. SHEYLA DIEGO CASTANEDA, No. 21-473 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-097-232 v. 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. Trancito Castaneda de Leon and her three children—Paola, Isabel, and Sheyla Diego Castaneda—seek review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeals of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their motion to terminate removal proceedings and of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). We deny the petition for review. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 21-470 1. The BIA correctly determined that the Notices to Appear that initiated the removal proceedings against Castaneda de Leon and her children vested jurisdiction with the IJ, even if they did not contain the date and time of the initial removal hearing. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc). 2. The BIA properly denied Castaneda de Leon and her children’s asylum and withholding claims. The BIA did not err in determining that Castaneda de Leon’s neighbor’s threats to “do something” to her or to “take” one of her children if she did not repay a debt did not establish past persecution. The neighbor’s threats were vague, and she did not follow through on them. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019); Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021). In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Castaneda de Leon and her children cannot establish a risk of persecution based on race or family membership. There is no nexus between these characteristics and the harm that they fear. The record demonstrates that the neighbor targeted Castaneda de Leon because of her failure to repay the debt, not because of her Konjobal ethnicity. And Castaneda de Leon’s family members have not been harmed in Guatemala, undermining her and her children’s race- and family-based claims for relief. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, the BIA …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals