FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 15 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICENTA HERNANDEZ-PEREZ, No. 17-71755 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-086-518 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 11, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW, IKUTA, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Vicenta Hernandez Perez (“Hernandez Perez”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) order dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) order denying Hernandez Perez’s applications for * 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). Therefore, the appellant’s motion to set argument is DENIED. asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Hernandez Perez failed to establish persecution on account of a protected ground. Even assuming without deciding, as the BIA did, that Hernandez Perez’s testimony was credible,1 substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Hernandez Perez was targeted solely “as a form of revenge because she declined [her alleged persecutor’s] request to be in a relationship with him.” Because persecution on account of a personal desire for revenge is not persecution on account of a protected ground, see Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011), Hernandez Perez’s claims for both asylum and withholding fail, see Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).2 Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Hernandez Perez was not more likely than not to be tortured “by, or at the instigation of, or 1 Because the BIA neither expressly adopted the IJ’s adverse credibility determination nor conducted its own analysis of Hernandez Perez’s credibility, and was not required to do either, we do not address Hernandez Perez’s challenge to the adverse credibility determination. See Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019). 2 Because the BIA assumed without deciding that Hernandez Perez’s particular social groups (“PSGs”) were cognizable, and did not expressly adopt the IJ’s determinations, we do not address Hernandez Perez’s challenge to the PSG inquiry. See Arrey, 916 F.3d at 1157. 2 with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity” if returned to Guatemala. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see also id. § 1208.16(c)(2). The BIA’s conclusion was supported by Hernandez Perez’s testimony that “the police in her area only spoke Spanish,” but [her alleged persecutor] and his accomplices spoke Mam, and the lack of evidence that [her alleged persecutor] and his two accomplices used genuine (as opposed to fake or stolen) police-affiliated equipment or attire. See Andrade- Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals