NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARGARITO HERNANDEZ-SANCHEZ, No. 18-70604 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-755-179 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 1, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD, OWENS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Margarito Hernandez-Sanchez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision. Petitioner argues substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s denial of his application for withholding of removal or request for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.1 First, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner did not establish the requisite nexus between any alleged harm and his membership in his proposed particular social group (PSG) of family. See Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).2 The record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination that revenge, and not Petitioner’s family membership, motivated the cartel member’s family’s actions toward Petitioner and his cousins. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). Petitioner all but concedes as much by acknowledging that the cartel member’s family sought revenge by seeking to kill several younger members of Petitioner’s family—all cousins—that they thought to be involved in the cartel member’s murder. See Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40, 45 (BIA 2017) (“[N]exus is not established simply because a [PSG] of family members exists and the family members experience harm. Thus, the fact that a persecutor has threatened an applicant and members of his family does not necessarily mean that the threats were motivated by family ties.”), overruled on 1 The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. 2 The BIA determined Petitioner waived any challenge to his second proposed PSG of “those who were kidnapped, extorted, and branded by a drug cartel,” and Petitioner does not raise this proposed PSG in his petition, so we do not address it here. Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 907–08 (9th Cir. 1987). 2 other grounds in 27 I. & N. Dec. 581 (2019). The cartel member’s family’s focus on revenge, as opposed to any motivation to harm the family per se, is further supported by the fact that Petitioner’s grandparents continue to reside safely in Mexico. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Substantial evidence … supports the [BIA]’s finding that [the petitioner]’s mother’s continued safety in his hometown undermines his well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his family ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals