Rosalio Banda v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSALIO CASAS BANDA, No. 17-71855
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-789-232
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 11, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: IKUTA, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rosalio Casas Banda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of the
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d
*
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).
1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not
recount them here. We deny the petition for review.
To qualify for withholding of removal, “the applicant must demonstrate that
it is ‘more likely than not that he or she would be persecuted on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion
upon removal to [the country in question].’” Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 719
(9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)). The requirement that the
applicant show that he or she would be persecuted “on account of” a protected
ground is often referred to as the “nexus” requirement. Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even if Banda
were credible, he failed to show that he was entitled to withholding of removal
because he failed to establish nexus to a protected ground. Banda alleged that he is
a member of the particular social group of “persons targeted by the cartels and
criminal organizations in Mexico based on their cooperation with law enforcement
for reporting such harm or illegal activities.” However, Banda provided
insufficient evidence that cartels or criminal organizations in Mexico have
persecuted or will persecute him on that basis. Rather, Banda testified that Zetas
gang members harassed him, his family, and “many other families” “because they
want money,” and that he did not feel he was being directly targeted by them.
2
An applicant’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.”
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Banda failed to meet his burden for
withholding of removal because he did not establish nexus.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3