Dionisia Sacor-Garcia v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIONISIA SACOR-GARCIA, No. 17-73226
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-377-752
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 13, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Dionisia Sacor-Garcia petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s denial of her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 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).
and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
1. To qualify for asylum and withholding of removal, Sacor-Garcia must
have shown that her husband is a person whom “the government is unable or
unwilling to control.” Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir.
2006) (quoting Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997)). By failing to
challenge the BIA’s holding that she did not show that the Guatemalan government
was unable or unwilling to control her husband, Sacor-Garcia has forfeited any
such argument. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir.
2013). Because this issue is dispositive of Sacor-Garcia’s asylum and withholding
claims, we do not consider any arguments related to Sacor-Garcia’s proposed
social group.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sacor-Garcia
does not qualify for CAT relief. Sacor-Garcia points to a State Department report
discussing sexual harassment and discrimination against women in Guatemala. But
generalized evidence of violence and crime in a country is insufficient to prove that
a specific individual faces a likelihood of mistreatment rising to the level of
torture. See Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (submitted
country reports were insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief because they
did not indicate any particularized risk of torture).
2
PETITION DENIED.
3