Blanca Jimenez-Guillen v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BLANCA LISSETH JIMENEZ GUILLEN, No. 20-72463
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-136-650
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN and BADE, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District
Judge.
Blanca Lisseth Jimenez Guillen petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from the immigration
*
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 Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 Jimenez Guillen testified
credibly that she was raped by two gang members after refusing to sell drugs on
their behalf, and asserts that she was targeted on account of her political opposition
to gangs and her membership in two particular social groups, orphans and young
Salvadorian women who “refuse to be treated as gang property.” We have
jurisdiction, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that there was no
nexus between the rape and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (as amended) (“An alien’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.”). The men who assaulted Jimenez Guillen
could not have known of her political opposition to their organization because she
had never previously advocated against gangs, and the record reflects she was
approached and threatened with violence before she ever expressed resistance to
the gang’s instructions. The one mistaken reference the BIA made to “theft” was
harmless—there can be no doubt the BIA understood that Jimenez Guillen left El
Salvador because she was raped. Cf. Szalai v. Holder, 572 F.3d 975, 982 (9th Cir.
1
Jimenez Guillen’s opening brief does not address the agency’s CAT ruling,
waiving any challenge. Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014).
2
2009) (per curiam).
We agree with the BIA that the IJ’s finding that Jimenez Guillen’s assailants
were “exclusively” motivated by general criminal intent forecloses any nexus
between the rape and Jimenez Guillen’s alleged membership in a particular social
group comprised of orphans. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016. We also agree that
Jimenez Guillen failed to offer any evidence to suggest that she was targeted on
account of her status as an orphan.
For these reasons, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding
that Jimenez Guillen’s fear of future persecution bears no nexus to a protected
ground.
Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s nexus determinations,
the agency permissibly concluded that Jimenez Guillen had failed to establish her
eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. We therefore need not consider
whether her asylum application was timely.
PETITION DENIED.
3