FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 2 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUANA JOAQUIN NICOLAS; No. 19-72061 LEANDRO ALEXANDER FRANCISCO JOAQUIN, Agency Nos. A208-596-011 A208-596-012 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 17, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: BYBEE and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON,*** District Judge. * 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 Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. Juana Joaquin Nicolas appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals denial of her application for withholding of removal.1 “We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up) (quoting Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014)). Under this standard, the agency determination must be upheld “unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992)). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, Joaquin Nicolas must demonstrate “that it is more likely than not that . . . she would be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion upon removal to [Guatemala].” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). That is, she must demonstrate that her “life or freedom would be threatened in [her 1 Joaquin Nicolas does not challenge the BIA's denial of her CAT claim. It also appears that she does not challenge the BIA's denial of her asylum claim. But to the extent she does, her challenge would fail for the same reasons discussed herein. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that both asylum and withholding of removal claims require a nexus between the protected ground and the alleged persecution). 2 home] country because of [her] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (emphasis added). Joaquin Nicolas must establish a nexus between her past or feared harm and a proposed protected ground. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359–60 (9th Cir. 2017). The nexus standard requires her to show that the protected ground “was a reason” for her persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3)(c). She cannot do so. With respect to Joaquin Nicolas’s first proposed protected social group, “my mother’s daughter,” she failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the harm suffered by some of her family members and her family membership. The perpetrator has never …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals