Cristobal Francisco v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 5, 2024
• Docket: 23-3691
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 5 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAQUEL CRISTOBAL No. 23-3691 FRANCISCO; FRANKLIN ALFREDO Agency Nos. MIGUEL CRISTOBAL, A220-309-087 A220-309-086 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 2, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE, IKUTA, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Raquel Cristobal Francisco and her son, F.A.M.C., are natives and

citizens of Guatemala. Petitioners seek review of the Board of 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). Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny their

petition.

In 2017, unknown individuals began throwing rocks at Cristobal Francisco’s

home in Guatemala. Also around this time, unknown individuals burglarized

Cristobal Francisco’s home. After this occurred, Cristobal Francisco decided to

leave Guatemala with F.A.M.C., and they entered the United States without

inspection in June 2021. Cristobal Francisco and F.A.M.C. subsequently applied for

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. An immigration judge

denied their applications and ordered them removed to Guatemala, and the BIA

affirmed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review “denials of

asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will

uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the

record considered as a whole.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir.

2014). Under this standard, the agency determination must be upheld “unless the

evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025,

1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We review “the BIA’s determination of purely legal questions”

de novo. Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018).

2 1. The BIA did not err in finding Petitioners were ineligible for asylum or

withholding of removal. The immigration judge found that “there was no nexus

between the harm” that Cristobal Francisco feared and “her proposed particular

social group[.]” The BIA subsequently adopted and affirmed this determination.

Petitioners do not challenge this finding and thus waive review of that issue. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). Consequently, “[t]he

lack of a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of [their] asylum and withholding

of removal claims.” Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016)

2. The BIA did not err in denying Petitioners’ applications for CAT relief,

either. To be eligible for CAT protection, a petitioner must establish that he or she

will more likely than not be subjected to “torture” that is “inflicted by or at the

instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person

acting in an official capacity” in their country of origin. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c);

1208.18(a)(1). But “generalized evidence of violence and crime . . . is not particular

to [p]etitioners and is insufficient . . . to establish prima facie eligibility for

protection under CAT.” Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.

2010). Here, the BIA adopted the immigration judge’s finding that Cristobal

Francisco was a victim of general criminal activity in Guatemala. And, looking to

the future, the BIA further found that Cristobal Francisco did “not establish that it is

more likely than not that she . . . faces an individualized risk of torture if returned to

3 Guatemala.” Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Cristobal

Francisco and F.A.M.C. are ineligible for CAT relief.

The petition is DENIED.