Alberto Chan-Son v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERTO CHAN-SON, No. 20-73526
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-092-900
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District
Judge.
Alberto Chan-Son, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the order
*
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 Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.
1. Chan-Son claims that he will be persecuted in Guatemala because of
his membership in a social group of “indigenous victims of crime unable to obtain
police protection.” He asserts that he was assaulted in Guatemala, received death
threats demanding money, and could not report these threats or abuse to the police
because he is indigenous. The IJ concluded, however, that Chan-Son had failed to
establish a nexus between any past or feared future persecution because of his
membership in a protected group.
The BIA correctly found the IJ’s decision supported by substantial evidence
in the record. Chan-Son testified that he was attacked because his three assailants
knew he had a fruit stand business, and wished to extort him for money. He did not
know whether he was persecuted on account of his race or membership in a
particular social group, and did not know the identities of the men who attacked him.
Without a nexus to a protected ground, Chan-Son’s asylum and withholding claims
fail. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482–83 (1992); see also Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“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.”).
2. Substantial evidence also supported the denial of CAT relief. See 8
2
C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). Chan-Son never reported his abuse to the police, and neither
his declaration nor his testimony compel the conclusion that he is more likely than
not to be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official if he returns
to Guatemala. Although there is evidence of societal discrimination against
indigenous groups in Guatemala, the government’s ineffective investigation or
prevention of crime does not constitute acquiescence in torture. See Andrade-Garcia
v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836–37 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Aguilar-Osario v. Garland,
991 F.3d 997, 1000 (9th Cir. 2021) (finding that public officials did not acquiesce to
torture when the “police never learned about [the] harm [petitioner] suffered”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3