Carneiro Da Silva v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-5443
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEANDRO CARNEIRO DA SILVA; et al., No. 24-5443

Petitioners, Agency Nos. A216-908-373 A216-908-374 v. A216-908-375

PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 7, 2025**

Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Leandro Carneiro Da Silva, his wife, and their minor daughter (“Petitioners”),

natives and citizens of Brazil, petition for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)

denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

* 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). Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny

the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners

failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm they suffered and a statutorily

protected ground. The BIA reasonably concluded that the threats from a loan shark

known as “Indiao” were motivated by debt collection, not by Petitioners’ race,

religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a 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.”). The failure to establish nexus

dooms their asylum claim.

2. Petitioners’ claim for withholding of removal also fails. To qualify,

Petitioners must prove it is “more likely than not” that they will be persecuted on

account of a protected ground. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.

2001) (simplified). Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination

that the harm Petitioners fear is not on account of a statutorily protected ground, they

necessarily fail to meet the higher burden for withholding of removal. See Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that an applicant who fails

to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more

stringent standard for withholding of removal).

2 3. The BIA also did not err in denying CAT relief. To qualify for CAT

protection, an applicant must show that it is more likely than not that they would be

tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. See 8 C.F.R. §§

1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Petitioners failed to meet this burden. While

Petitioners asserted that the police are corrupt and that “Indiao” claimed to have

police connections, they provided no corroborating evidence. Although Petitioners

submitted evidence of general corruption in Brazil, they failed to demonstrate that

they personally face a particularized risk of torture with government acquiescence.

Generalized country conditions, without more, are insufficient. See Garcia-Milian

v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033–34 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that general claims

of government corruption or ineffectiveness are insufficient without evidence of

government acquiescence to likely torture). Moreover, the record shows that, in

2009, Brazilian authorities provided effective protection against a different threat

from a relative, further undermining Petitioners’ CAT claim.

PETITION DENIED.