FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 18 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SILVIA MARITZA CHAVEZ DE No. 19-72437 MUNGUIA; GENESIS GUADALUPE MUNGUIA CHAVEZ, Agency Nos. A205-634-825 A205-634-826 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 2, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge. * 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 Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. Petitioners Silvia Maritza Chavez de Munguia and her daughter, Genesis Guadalupe Munguia Chavez (collectively, “Munguia”), applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Munguia claims that she was persecuted on three protected grounds: political opinion, family membership, and the particular social group of “Salvadorans who refuse to comply with extortion demands.” Munguia also asserts that she is entitled to CAT relief, a new hearing because of errors in translation, and humanitarian asylum on the basis of family membership. The Immigration Judge denied her applications. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of her claims. We deny the petitions. 1. The BIA was within its authority to conclude that the facts were insufficient to demonstrate that Munguia’s resistance to gang extortion demands was an actual or imputed political opinion under the INA. Munguia “provided no evidence that [her] opposition to the gang’s criminal activity was based on political opinion” or “that the [gang] imputed to [her] any particular political belief.” Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013). 2. Munguia put forward two proposed social groups based on her family membership: (1) “immediate relatives of Evereth Alexander Munguia Ortiz” (her 2 husband) and (2) “immediate relatives of Luis Vasquez” (her cousin). She asserts that the agency erred in holding that she failed to establish a nexus between either group and the alleged persecution. The evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. Munguia has not provided any evidence, direct or circumstantial, of the gang’s animus towards her husband or his relatives. She acknowledges that her family still lives in El Salvador and does not know if they have had problems with the gangs. Petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground” of family membership. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, the BIA did not err. 3. The BIA did not err when it determined that the proposed social group, “Salvadorans who refuse to comply with extortion demands” is not cognizable. Substantial evidence supports the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals