NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MIGDALIA AZUCENA GIRON GARCIA; No. 17-72906 NARALY ROCIO AGUILAR-GIRON, Agency Nos. A206-455-937 Petitioners, A206-455-938 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 15, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER, GOULD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Migdalia Azucena Giron Garcia (“Giron Garcia”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal and ordering her removed to Guatemala. Petitioner Naraly Rocio Aguilar-Giron, Giron Garcia’s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). daughter, is a derivative beneficiary with respect to her mother’s application for asylum only. See Ali v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780, 782 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R § 1208.21. We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 242(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Under that standard, the “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the petition. To qualify for asylum, Giron Garcia must show that she was persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,” see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A), and that one of these protected ground constitutes “one central reason” for the alleged persecution, id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). To qualify for withholding of removal, Giron Garcia must show that one of these protected grounds constituted “a reason” for the persecution. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–59 (9th Cir. 2017); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Giron Garcia failed to establish a sufficient nexus, under either of these standards, between her alleged persecution and her membership in a particular social group. 2 The agency reasonably determined that Giron Garcia had failed to show that the harassing phone calls and text messages she received were based on her membership in her proposed social groups, namely, “member[s] of the Giron Garcia family” and “Guatemalan women.” Giron Garcia acknowledged that she did not know the identity of the anonymous caller, and while she thought that the caller was probably one of her husband’s ex-girlfriends, she also said that she did not think that the caller was either of the two women with whom he had previously lived. Although “‘the factual circumstances alone’ may constitute …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals