NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 17 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GAUDI ELIZABETH VELASQUEZ- No. 17-70625 PEREZ; YESLI ADRIANA SUCHI- VELASQUEZ; ALEX ARMANDO Agency Nos. A206-643-145 SUCHI-VELASQUEZ, A206-643-146 A206-643-147 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 9, 2020 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SCHROEDER and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Gaudi Velasquez-Perez (Velasquez) petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge (IJ) decision denying her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Yesli Suchi-Velasquez and Alex * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Suchi-Velasquez, Velasquez’s children and derivative beneficiaries of her asylum application, likewise petition for review of the BIA order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part, grant the petition in part, and remand. We review “denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted). Under this standard, we uphold the agency’s determination “unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary conclusion.” Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007). “We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion. Where the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration judge’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). 1. Asylum may be granted to an alien who proves she is a “refugee,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A), defined as an alien who is “unable or unwilling” to return to her own country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Among other things, an asylum applicant must demonstrate that a protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting” her. Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 2 F.3d 734, 740–41 (9th Cir. 2009). The BIA declined to address whether Velasquez’s proposed social groups were cognizable and instead dismissed Velasquez’s appeal of her asylum claim on the ground that she had failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the alleged harm and her membership in the proffered groups. Our review is therefore limited to the issue of nexus. See Hernandez-Cruz v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1094, 1110 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e cannot deny a petition for review on a ground that the BIA itself did not base its decision.”). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Velasquez did not demonstrate a sufficient nexus for purposes of her asylum claim. The record does not compel ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals