NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA DE JESUS HUERTA-TORRES, No. 19-71947 Petitioner, Agency No. A086-943-934 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 12, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: HURWITZ and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FEINERMAN,*** District Judge. Maria de Jesus Huerta-Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her * 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 Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. appeal from an Immigration Judge’s order denying her applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny Huerta-Torres’s petition. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even if Huerta- Torres’s family qualifies as a cognizable social group, she did not satisfy her burden to establish a “clear probability” that her life or freedom would be threatened because of her family membership if deported to Mexico. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). In particular, the record supports the BIA’s conclusion that Huerta-Torres did not establish the required nexus between any feared harm and her family membership. Huerta-Torres testified that she feared retribution from drug cartels in Mexico because several of her family members have been the victims of violence or received threats from the cartels, and because family members have cooperated with investigations by the authorities. But the record evidence indicates that the crimes were random violence, not targeted attacks on her family. Indeed, Huerta- Torres herself testified that her family members were targeted for traveling between different cartels’ territories, not for belonging to a specific family. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A] desire to be free from 2 harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). In addition, Huerta-Torres has multiple family members still living in Mexico who have not been targeted by drug cartels. That is further evidence supporting the BIA’s finding that there was no nexus between Huerta-Torres’s feared harm and her family membership. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Where the claimed group membership is the family, a family member’s continuing safety is an even more persuasive factor in considering a petitioner’s well-founded fear.”), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). To obtain …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals