Case: 22-61, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Maria Elena Lopez Guerrero; Nora No. 22-61 Guzman Lopez; Blanca Guzman Lopez; Agency Nos. A208-604-328 Ublado Guzman Lopez; Paloma Guzman A208-604-329 A208-604-330 Lopez; Alexa Guzman Lopez A208-604-331 A208-604-332 A208-604-333 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* Merrick B. Garland, U.S. 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, 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: 22-61, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 2 of 5 Petitioners Maria Elena Lopez Guerrero and her five children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Petitioners’ application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). For the reasons below, we deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the determination that Petitioners did not show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution because the record did not establish the required nexus between the Petitioners’ experiences and proposed social group.1 Although Petitioners understandably fear comunitario and cartel violence, the record does not show that either the comunitarios or cartel targeted Petitioners because of their familial relationship to an individual who resisted recruitment and extortion. See Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 646 (9th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that “an applicant must show [they were] individually targeted on account of a protected ground rather than simply the victim of generalized violence”). Petitioners argue that the IJ and BIA did not correctly characterize the proposed social group, which Petitioners describe as relatives of an individual who resisted and fled comunitario recruitment who themselves fled Mexico and 1 We review the agency’s factual findings, including whether alleged persecutors were motivated by Petitioners’ membership in a particular social group, for substantial evidence. Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)). 2 22-61 Case: 22-61, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 3 of 5 then returned. Even assuming Petitioners adequately presented that proposed social group to the agency and that it is cognizable and not waived, Petitioners’ general, anecdotal assertions that cartels kill those who flee and then return do not establish that Petitioners might be targeted because of their membership in that group. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding fear of future persecution was too speculative where record did not contain specific evidence). Petitioners therefore did not satisfy the nexus requirement for either asylum or withholding of removal.2 2. Petitioners failed to exhaust their ineffective …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals