Chavez-Martin v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 27, 2025
• Docket: 24-957
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 27 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REYNA YOLANDA CHAVEZ-MARTIN, No. 24-957 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-446-685 v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 23, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GRABER, TALLMAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Reyna Yolanda Chavez-Martin, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of the denial of her applications 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.

* 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). “We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for

substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.

2019). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the

evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum and

withholding of removal on the ground that Chavez-Martin failed to establish a nexus

between any past or potential future harm and a protected ground under the Refugee

Act. Although Chavez-Martin argues that she was harmed and will be harmed

because she is Mayan and an indigenous woman in Guatemala, the agency

determined that neither ground was a “central reason” or “a reason” for her alleged

persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d

351, 358 (9th Cir. 2017). According to her testimony, Chavez-Martin was attacked

and threatened by unidentified individuals for unknown reasons or for reasons

unrelated to a statutorily protected ground. We therefore cannot say that “any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B),

that Chavez-Martin suffered or will suffer harm on account of her Mayan ethnicity

or her membership in the putative social group “indigenous women in Guatemala.”

2. Chavez-Martin also argues that she established a well-founded fear of

persecution based on her membership in a disfavored group, relying in part on

country conditions evidence. But the agency permissibly concluded that she did not

2 24-957 establish an individualized or unique risk of persecution.1 See Mgoian v. INS, 184

F.3d 1029, 1035 n.4 (9th Cir. 1999). Thus, the record does not compel us to disturb

the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Chavez-Martin’s

CAT claim. The record evidence does not compel the conclusion that government

officials knew about or were willfully blind to the incidents of which she testified,

nor does it compel the conclusion that the Guatemalan government is likely to

acquiesce in any future torture that she might suffer. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder,

755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

1 Chavez-Martin argues that the agency failed to address her argument regarding her membership in a disfavored group. However, the immigration judge assumed arguendo that “indigenous women in Guatemala” was a disfavored group, and the Board of Immigration Appeals explicitly adopted and affirmed the immigration judge’s decision.

3 24-957