Ramirez-Raymundo v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR EDUARDO RAMIREZ- No. 21-246
RAYMUNDO,
Agency No.
Petitioner, A208-580-224
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review from a Final Order
Of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 8, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH and DESAI, Circuit Judges, and AMON,*** District Judge.
Edgar Eduardo Ramirez-Raymundo (“Ramirez-Raymundo”), a native and
citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition.
We review agency denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
claims for substantial evidence. Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir.
2017). We also review the BIA’s factual determinations—including its nexus
finding—for substantial evidence. Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 910 (9th Cir.
2018). Additionally, “[w]here the BIA has reviewed the IJ’s decision and
incorporated portions of it as its own, we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s
decision as the BIA’s.” Maie v. Garland, 7 F.4th 841, 845 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th
Cir. 2002)).
Ramirez-Raymundo alleges that the “maras” (local criminals) persecuted him
because they believed he was wealthy. In denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal, the IJ found Ramirez-Raymundo credible, but concluded
that he failed to show a nexus between the alleged persecution and his membership
2
in the proposed particular social group of “agricultural landowners.” The BIA
affirmed the IJ’s decision and adopted its nexus finding. 1
Substantial evidence supports the BIA and IJ’s finding that Ramirez-
Raymundo failed to establish a nexus. Ramirez-Raymundo testified that the maras
targeted him to extort money. Nothing in the record compels the conclusion that the
maras were motivated by a hostility to “agricultural landowners” or a desire to harm
that particular social group. See 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 supports the BIA and IJ’s denial of relief under
CAT. To be eligible for CAT relief, a petitioner “must show that it is ‘more likely
than not’ that a government official or person acting in an official capacity would
torture him or aid or acquiesce in his torture by others.” Wakkary v. Holder, 558
F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283
(9th Cir. 2001)). In this case, there is no evidence that the “instances of general
1
Because the BIA did not disturb the IJ’s credibility finding or dispute that
“agricultural landowners” is a cognizable social group, we do not review these
aspects of the agency’s decision. Regalado-Escobar v. Holder, 717 F.3d 724, 729
(9th Cir. 2013).
2
Other statements by Ramirez-Raymundo, although not explicitly relied on by
the agency, also support the agency’s finding on the lack of nexus. For example,
Ramirez-Raymundo testified that the maras also extorted people who did not own
land and that they told him that he could “pay” by joining them.
3
crime” described by Ramirez-Raymundo rose to the level of “torture.” Ruiz-
Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2022).
PETITION DENIED.
4