Lopez-Carrillo v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODRIGO LOPEZ-CARRILLO, No. 21-742
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-305-953
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 14, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: BRESS and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN, *** District
Judge.
Rodrigo Lopez Carrillo (Carrillo), a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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 Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for
the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s decision for
substantial evidence. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021).
“Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d
1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding
of removal. To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to
demonstrate “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). “To be eligible for withholding of
removal, the petitioner must discharge this burden by a clear probability.”
Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1059. To obtain relief, the petitioner must show that his past
or feared persecution bears a nexus to a protected ground. Garcia v. Wilkinson,
988 F.3d 1136, 1143, 1146–48 (9th Cir. 2021). For asylum, the petitioner must
show that a protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for the
persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). For withholding of removal, there is
a nexus if the petitioner shows that a protected ground was “a reason” for the
past or feared harm. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir.
2017).
Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Carrillo
had not met the nexus requirement. There is no evidence that the gangs knew of
2 21-742
any anti-gang political opinion that Carrillo may have held. Thus, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Carrillo had not established a
nexus between any alleged persecution and an imputed political opinion. Singh
v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153, 1159 (“To demonstrate a nexus between [petitioner’s]
mistreatment and an imputed political opinion, [petitioner] must show (1) that
. . . his persecutors believed that he held . . . a political opinion; and (2) that he
was harmed because of that political opinion.” (citation and quotation marks
omitted)).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Carrillo’s
other claimed bases for persecution lacked the required nexus. The BIA could
conclude that Carrillo presented insufficient evidence suggesting that he was
targeted because of his family membership. The record does not compel the
conclusion that the gangs knew Carrillo and his cousin were related, nor does it
indicate that the people who approached his mother were motivated by any
familial ties. Similarly, as the BIA noted, there was insufficient evidence that
the gangs persecuted Carrillo on the basis of his reports to the police. Thus, the
record does not compel the conclusion that there was a nexus between Carrillo’s
proposed social group of “witnesses who testify against gang members” and any
alleged persecution.
2. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. An
applicant for CAT relief bears the burden of establishing that he “will more
likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
3 21-742
if removed to h[is] native country.” Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175,
1183 (9th Cir. 2020). Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that Carrillo had not met that burden when his fear of torture was
based only on general police weakness, corruption, and gang violence. See
Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[G]eneral
ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will
not suffice to show acquiescence.”). The record does not compel the opposite
conclusion.
PETITION DENIED.
4 21-742