Cucunubo Perez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 16, 2025
• Docket: 24-2428
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE RICARDO CUCUNUBO No. 24-2428 PEREZ; YULI ANDREA MEDINA Agency Nos. GONZALEZ; CHRISTIAN RICHARD A240-647-960 CUCUNUBO MEDINA; NICOL ANDREA A246-561-845 CUCUNUBO MEDINA; MARIA A220-487-046 ALEJANDRA CUCUNUBO MEDINA, A240-640-402 A246-561-846 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 25, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: NGUYEN and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and KERNODLE, District Judge.***

* 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). *** The Honorable Jeremy D. Kernodle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Petitioners are natives and citizens of Colombia: Jose Ricardo Cucunubo

Perez is the lead petitioner, Yuli is his partner, and their children are Nicol, Christian,

and Maria. They petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). As explained below, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and

deny the petition.

“Where, as here, the BIA dismissed an appeal, agreed with several of the IJ’s

findings, and added its own reasoning, we review the decisions of both the BIA and

the IJ to the extent that the BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusions.” Manzano v.

Garland, 104 F.4th 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). Factual findings by the

BIA are reviewed for substantial evidence and “‘are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Garcia v.

Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).

While Petitioners raise several arguments that the BIA did not address, “[o]ur review

is limited to those grounds explicitly relied upon by the [BIA].” Budiono v. Lynch,

837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016).

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

failed to establish a nexus between their persecution and their political opinion.

See Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019) (discussing the nexus

2 24-2428 requirements for asylum and withholding of removal claims). Petitioners claim that

their sole protected ground is their political opinion of opposing the relationship

between the Colombian government and militia groups known as the Revolutionary

Armed Forces and the National Liberation Army. But the IJ did not err in finding

that little evidence tied the individuals who extorted and threatened Petitioners to

any of those groups. In fact, the record reflects these were criminals motivated by

monetary gain, not Petitioners’ political opinion. The IJ and BIA therefore correctly

found that Petitioners feared only general criminality, which is not a protected

ground. 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.”). Because Petitioners failed

to show the required nexus between their threats and extortion and a protected

ground, they are not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. See id.

(ineligible for asylum); Singh, 935 F.3d at 827 (ineligible for withholding of

removal).

2. Regarding Petitioners’ CAT claim, substantial evidence supports the

IJ’s and BIA’s finding that Petitioners failed to prove government consent or

acquiescence in any claimed torture. See 8 C.F.R § 208.18(a)(1). Petitioners

contended that the police were unhelpful and that Yuli had received an anonymous

note warning her that the “police work along with them.” But “[e]vidence that the

3 24-2428 police were aware of a particular crime, but failed to bring the perpetrators to justice,

is not in itself sufficient to establish acquiescence in the crime. Instead, there must

be evidence that the police are unable or unwilling to oppose the crime.” Garcia-

Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). In other words, an “inability

to solve a crime” based on insufficient information does not mean that the

government acquiesced in the conduct. Id. And despite Yuli’s claim that the police

worked “along with them,” the country report provided by Petitioners noted that the

Colombian government “generally investigated . . . and prosecuted” cases of police

collusion with such groups. Therefore, Petitioners are not eligible for protection

under CAT.

PETITION DENIED.

4 24-2428