NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARITZA CELESTE PEREZ-LOPEZ; et No. 18-71631 al., 19-73300 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-886-030 A206-886-031 v. A206-886-032 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 5, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: SILER,*** IKUTA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Maritza Perez-Lopez (“Perez-Lopez”) and her two minor children petition to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final removal order and denial * 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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. of a motion to reopen and terminate proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition regarding the removal order, because the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) is supported by substantial evidence. See Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining the standard of review). We also deny the petition regarding the motion to reopen, because Perez-Lopez failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by neglecting to raise her argument in her appeal to the BIA. 1. Perez-Lopez claims that she is entitled to asylum and withholding of removal as she cannot return to Guatemala “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of . . . membership in a particular social group.” See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A). To establish eligibility for asylum based on past persecution, “an applicant must show: (1) an incident, or incidents, that rise to the level of persecution; (2) that is on account of one of the statutorily-protected grounds; and (3) is committed by the government or forces the government is either unable or unwilling to control.” Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 655–56 (9th Cir. 2000). Perez-Lopez claims that she was persecuted on account of her membership in a particular social group: single female Guatemalan business owners whose partners are in the United States. Even so, the BIA’s conclusion that Perez-Lopez failed to 2 establish a nexus between her membership and any past persecution is supported by substantial evidence. 1 See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (“[A petitioner] must establish that any persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group.”). Perez-Lopez received a series of anonymous extortion demands over the telephone. She points to the caller’s references to her small business and husband’s presence in the United States to show that she was targeted because of her particular social group. The BIA reasonably concluded that economic motives drove the caller’s threats, as …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals