FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 6 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARLON GEOVANNY GUTIERREZ Nos. 17-72632 HERNANDEZ; KAREN YAMILET 18-71365 DIAZ NAVARRO; JASON RICARDO GOMEZ DIAZ; ONEYDA MARISOL Agency Nos. A208-311-508 GOMEZ DIAZ; BRITANY DAYANARA A208-310-232 GUTIERREZ DIAZ, A208-310-233 A208-310-238 Petitioners, A208-310-239 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 2, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and BYBEE, 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). Petitioners are romantic partners and three minor children who are all natives and citizens of Honduras. Petitioners have filed two petitions for review. The first petition seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second petition seeks review of the BIA’s denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We consolidated the two petitions and review them together. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We will uphold the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims unless the record “compels a contrary conclusion.” Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007). We review the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for abuse of discretion. Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny both petitions. 1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Specifically, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, under the standards applicable to asylum (“one central reason”) and to withholding of removal (“a reason”) for demonstrating a nexus between harm and a protected ground, Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 356–60 2 (9th Cir. 2017), the violence Petitioners suffered was on account of an intra-family conflict and not on account of a protected ground. Applying the applicable legal standard set out in Barajas-Romero, the BIA determined that this dispute arose out of the Petitioners’ refusal to allow their daughter to spend time at her aunt’s home because the aunt was romantically involved with a member of a criminal gang. Feeling slighted, the aunt enlisted several alleged members of the gang to torment Petitioners. Accordingly, the BIA permissibly held that the dispute was personal in nature. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief, because Petitioner failed to establish that it is “more likely than not that a government official or person acting in an official capacity would torture [the Petitioners] or aid or acquiesce in [their] torture by others.” Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals