Carrillo Lopez De Garcia v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-1355
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUCIA CARRILLO LOPEZ DE GARCIA; No. 24-1355 YESICA GARCIA CARRILLO; YEINER Agency Nos. GARCIA CARRILLO; DILAN GARCIA A220-489-175 CARRILLO, A220-489-176 A220-489-177 Petitioners, A220-489-178 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 20, 2025** Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, PAEZ, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Lucia Carrillo Lopez de Garcia and her three minor children, derivative

petitioners (collectively, “petitioners”), are citizens of Guatemala. They seek review

* 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). of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal of an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We deny the petition.

We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection

for substantial evidence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.

2014). Under this standard, the court “must uphold the [BIA] determination unless

the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d

1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).

1. Petitioners argue that the BIA did not consider their allegations of

future persecution. But petitioners’ documentary evidence and testimony show only

general violence and crime in Guatemala, which do not alone establish an

“objectively reasonable” fear of future persecution. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v.

Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1022 (9th Cir. 2023). Substantial evidence thus supports

the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to show the requisite likelihood of future

persecution for their asylum and withholding of removal claims.

2. Petitioners also argue that the BIA erred in evaluating their CAT claim.

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that it is not “more

likely than not” petitioners will be tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Gonzalez-

Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2018). Petitioners’ evidence

2 24-1355 of general violence and crime in Guatemala, coupled with testimony about

threatening phone calls Carrillo Lopez de Garcia received, “is insufficient to meet

[CAT’s] standard.” Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding of

removal, and CAT protection.

PETITION DENIED.

3 24-1355