Sanchez-Barrera v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSI DALIA SANCHEZ-BARRERA, No. 21-123
REGILSON ALEXANDER LEMUS-
SANCHEZ, Agency Nos. A202-131-172
/ A202-131-173
Petitioners,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Rosi Dalia Sanchez-Barrera, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(CAT). Sanchez-Barrera’s son, Regilson Alexander Lemus-Sanchez, also a citizen
of Guatemala, is a derivative applicant in Sanchez-Barrera’s asylum claim only.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Our review is confined to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the
BIA incorporates the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision as its own. Molina-
Estrada v. I.N.S., 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002). We review the BIA’s
factual findings for substantial evidence, and “must uphold the agency
determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).
Sanchez-Barrera alleges that the mayor of her municipality in Guatemala
was involved in the murders of three family members and two incidents where she
observed men searching around her home. She argues that the mayor’s alleged
motivation to harm her proposed particular social group— “members of the Lemus
family”—constitutes a compelling showing of past persecution, fear of future
persecution, and likelihood of torture to support a grant of asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief. Her arguments are not persuasive.
1. To be eligible for asylum, the applicant must demonstrate that she has
suffered “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” Id. While “the family remains the quintessential particular social
2
group,” Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015), an applicant still has
the burden to prove that a nexus exists between the alleged persecution and
familial association. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890-91 (9th
Cir. 2021). An applicant seeking withholding of removal “must satisfy a more
stringent standard” of demonstrating that it is “more likely than not” that she would
suffer future persecution on account of a protected ground if she returned to her
native country. Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029.
Assuming that “members of the Lemus family” is a cognizable social
group,1 Sanchez-Barrera has failed to establish that the alleged murders of her
family members or incidents around her home were on account of membership in
the Lemus family. The BIA reasonably concluded that there was no compelling
evidence of animus against the Lemus family during these incidents. Rather, the
record reflects that the family members were murdered for unknown reasons or for
reasons separate from familial association, such as an ongoing business rivalry or
political differences. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010)
(holding that petitioner failed to prove a nexus where there was no evidence that
his family members were murdered on account of a protected ground and where
1
Given the lack of a nexus between the alleged past persecution and
“members of the Lemus family,” we need not address whether Sanchez-Barrera’s
proposed familial social group is cognizable. See Santos-Ponce, 987 F.3d at 891,
n.3.
3
petitioner testified to a separate motivation for murders).
Also, Sanchez-Barrera offers no evidence to support her assertions that
either her or her son’s membership in the Lemus family was “one central reason”
or even “a reason” that the men were allegedly searching around her home. See
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (drawing no
distinction between the asylum statute’s “one central reason” phrase and the
withholding of removal statute’s lesser “a reason” phrase when there is “no nexus
at all”).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Sanchez-
Barrera did not establish a well-founded fear or likelihood of future persecution on
account of association with her husband’s family because members of the family—
including three of Sanchez-Barrera’s children and her husband’s parents—continue
to safely live in Guatemala without persecution. See Aruta v. I.N.S., 80 F.3d 1389,
1395 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding evidence that “similarly situated members of the
petitioner’s family continued to reside without incident” in petitioner’s native
country substantially supports denial of asylum).
Because Petitioners failed to establish that the alleged murders or incidents
around their home occurred on account of membership in the Lemus family, we
affirm the BIA’s denial of Petitioners’ application for asylum and Sanchez-
Barrera’s application for withholding of removal.
4
2. Sanchez-Barrera has not made the requisite showing for CAT relief
because she has not established “that she will more likely than not be tortured with
the consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed to her native country.”
Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).2 Neither Sanchez-
Barrera’s generalized country reports of corruption nor the news article detailing a
feud between the mayor and a separate, unidentified “Lemus-Perez family”
compels the conclusion that the mayor or any other government official in
Guatemala would consent to or acquiesce in Sanchez-Barrera’s torture if she
returned to Guatemala. See B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 845 (9th Cir. 2022)
(finding that generalized country reports and news clippings were insufficient to
establish that the government would acquiesce in the torture of a specific
petitioner).
The petition is DENIED.
2
Although Sanchez-Barrera contends that the BIA failed to address her
allegations that the mayor was behind the murders and home incidents, the BIA’s
opinion agreed with the IJ’s decision, which specifically addressed Sanchez-
Barrera’s allegations concerning the mayor.
5