Efrain Gonzalez-Francisco v. Todd Blanche

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EFRAIN GONZALEZ-FRANCISCO; No. 21-70075 LUCAS GONZALEZ-LUCAS, Agency Nos. A200-630-148 Petitioners, A209-443-494

v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 26, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: FORREST, DESAI, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Efrain Gonzalez-Francisco (“Gonzalez-Francisco”) and his son, both natives

and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s order denying

* 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). their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioners allege that they fear persecution

or torture if returned to Guatemala because Gonzalez-Francisco was harmed or

threatened by gang members several times while living there. He argues that he was

targeted on account of his race or status as an indigenous person. The agency denied

petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims based on a lack of nexus to

a protected ground and denied their CAT claims based on a lack of government

acquiescence to torture.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review findings as to a

persecutor’s motive and whether the government would acquiesce in torture for

substantial evidence. Manzano v. Garland, 104 F.4th 1202, 1209–10 (9th Cir. 2024);

B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 845 (9th Cir. 2022). We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Gonzalez-

Francisco did not establish a nexus between harm and a protected ground. The

agency found that the gang members who attacked and threatened Gonzalez-

Francisco were motivated by financial gain, and the record does not contain any

contrary evidence. Indeed, Gonzalez-Francisco repeatedly testified that gang

members attacked him because they believed he had money. Because substantial

evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Gonzalez-Francisco’s feared harm

bears no nexus to a protected ground, his asylum and withholding of removal claims

2 fail. See Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioners

would not face torture by or with the acquiescence of the government. Although

Gonzalez-Francisco testified that he reported two attacks to the police and they

refused to help him because he did not have money, he also acknowledged that police

did not ask him for money to investigate. And “a general ineffectiveness on the

government’s part to investigate and prevent crime” is not sufficient to show

acquiescence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836–37 (9th Cir. 2016).

Because the record reflects, at most, that the Guatemalan “government has been

generally ineffective in preventing or investigating criminal activities,” the record

does not compel the conclusion that the government would acquiesce in future

torture.1 See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014).

The petition for review is DENIED.

1 Petitioners failed to exhaust their argument that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over the removal proceedings based on defects in their Notices to Appear. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009). We decline to address it.