Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-214
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LAURA GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, No. 24-214 Agency No. Petitioner, A220-228-812 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 12, 2025** Seattle, Washington

Before: W. FLETCHER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge.***

Laura Gonzalez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the

* 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 Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for asylum and

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing

the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and any legal questions,

including due process claims, de novo, see Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882

F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018), we deny the petition.

1. Gonzalez-Gonzalez challenges the BIA’s finding that she failed to show a

nexus between any persecution she suffered or fears in Guatemala and her

membership in a particular social group. She claims persecution on account of

being a woman in Guatemala, but she acknowledged that “all of [Mateo’s] threats

and all of his anger was because [she] rejected him,” and she did not know of “any

other reason why he wanted to kill [her].” While that does not preclude her status

as a Guatemalan woman from being an additional causal factor, see Madrigal v.

Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013), the BIA did not err in finding that no

record evidence supports such a finding. See Kaur v. Garland, 2 F.4th 823, 835

(9th Cir. 2021) (“[A] personal vendetta without more does not provide a sufficient

basis for relief . . . .”).

2. Gonzalez-Gonzalez also contends that the IJ violated her due process

rights by failing to explain the requirements for relief or develop the record

regarding her religious persecution claim. To prevail, she must show that the

proceeding was so fundamentally unfair as to prevent her from reasonably

2 24-214 presenting her case and that this unfairness may have affected the proceeding’s

outcome. Arizmendi-Medina v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2023).

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the IJ could have better developed the

record, Gonzalez-Gonzalez identifies no prejudice—she does not explain how

religious violence against her father affected her. Nor does she establish prejudice

from the IJ’s failure to explain the requirements for relief. It is not enough that she

“maintain that [she] could demonstrate a valid asylum claim if [her] case were

remanded.” Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Zamorano

v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1228 (9th Cir. 2021) (finding no prejudice where the

petitioner “[had] not explained how the IJ’s failure to develop additional facts at

the immigration proceeding affected his ability to obtain . . . relief”).

PETITION DENIED.

3 24-214