NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAVIER LORENZO-CALMO, No. 20-72318 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-193-921 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 10, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: BERZON and BEA, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,*** District Judge. Javier Lorenzo Calmo petitions for review of his removal order. The BIA reached three issues in this case: 1) for asylum and withholding of removal relief, * 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 Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. whether Lorenzo Calmo showed a nexus between his persecution and his religion, in particular his role as a Catholic preacher; 2) for asylum and withholding of removal relief, whether he showed past persecution based on membership in the particular social group of persons of Mayan descent; and 3) for relief under the Convention Against Torture, whether he showed the government would acquiesce in his persecution. The agency expressly declined “to address [Lorenzo Calmo’s] other arguments on appeal,” so our review is limited to these issues. See Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). We grant Lorenzo Calmo’s petition with regard to asylum and withholding of removal relief based on both religion and membership in a particular social group. We deny the petition with regard to relief under the Convention Against Torture. 1. Nexus to religion. For asylum, a petitioner must show he is unable or unwilling to return to his home country “because of [past] persecution or a well- founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). For a withholding of removal claim, the same standard applies but the applicant must show future persecution on a protected ground is “more likely than not.” See Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018). 2 At issue in this case is the standard a petitioner must meet to show the persecution was “on account of” a protected ground. An applicant for asylum must show a protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (emphasis added); see Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013). For withholding of removal relief, the protected ground need only be “a reason” for the persecution. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–60 (9th Cir. 2017) (emphasis added) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C)). Under both standards, an applicant can meet his burden by showing his persecutors had mixed motives, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals