Elia Ramos-Lopez v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIA RAMOS-LOPEZ; et al., No. 19-70642
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-910-845
A206-910-846
v. A206-910-847
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 5, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Elia Ramos-Lopez and her minor children, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse their untimely asylum
applications. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Toj-Culpatan v. Holder,
612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish past persecution. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018,
1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An applicant alleging past persecution has the burden of
establishing that (1) his treatment rises to the level of persecution; (2) the
persecution was on account of one or more protected grounds; and (3) the
persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government
was unable or unwilling to control.”). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that petitioners failed to establish that the harm they fear
would be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or
circumstantial.”); Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if
membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show
that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”).
Thus, petitioners’ withholding of removal claim fails.
2 19-70642
We do not reach petitioners’ contentions that they established a cognizable
particular social group because the BIA did not decide that issue. See Najmabadi
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court’s review is limited to the
actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that in the absence
of past persecution, petitioners failed to establish eligibility for humanitarian
asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii); see also Vongsakdy v. INS, 171 F.3d
1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999) (humanitarian asylum is “reserved for rare situations of
atrocious persecution” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-70642