Guinac-Velasquez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 13, 2025
• Docket: 23-4259
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERICELDA BEATRICE GUINAC- No. 23-4259 VELASQUEZ, Agency No. A205-272-695 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 2, 2025** Seattle, Washington

Before: RAWLINSON, BRESS, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Ericelda Beatrice Guinac-Velasquez (Guinac-Velasquez), a native and

citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the denial of her applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture

* 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). (CAT), and cancellation of removal. We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)

denial of asylum and withholding of removal on the basis that Guinac-Velasquez

failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution or a clear

probability of future persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81

(9th Cir. 2007); Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010).1

For both asylum and withholding of removal, an applicant may demonstrate

an “objective risk of future persecution” by establishing (1) “a reasonable

possibility that [she] will be singled out individually for persecution” as a member

of a disfavored group2 or (2) “that there is a systematic pattern or practice of

persecution against the group to which [she] belongs in [her] home country.”

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted).

Substantial evidence supports the finding of no pattern or practice of

1 Because our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, and the BIA did not make a nexus determination, we do not address Guinac-Velasquez’s arguments regarding the different nexus standards for asylum and withholding of removal. See Singh v. Garland, 57 F.4th 643, 651 (9th Cir. 2023). 2 Guinac-Velasquez failed to exhaust her disfavored group claim because she did not raise the issue before the BIA. See Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland, 47 F.4th 971, 981 (9th Cir. 2022). Regardless, the BIA (in adopting the IJ’s findings) appears to have addressed any such claim, which lacks merit.

2 23-4259 persecution against lesbians because the violence reported against women who

identify as lesbians is not pervasive, and the Guatemalan government has made

progress in protecting the rights of lesbian women in Guatemala. Although lesbian

women are more likely to experience discrimination, that is not the same as

persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061.

2. The BIA used the proper legal standard in affirming the Immigration

Judge’s (IJ) denial of CAT relief. The BIA reviewed for clear error the IJ’s factual

findings as to whether Guinac-Velasquez would be tortured in Guatemala, then

reviewed de novo whether those facts met the legal requirements for CAT relief.

See Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012). Applying that

standard, the BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s factual finding that country

conditions evidence showed generalized violence in Guatemala rather than a

particularized risk of torture. See Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir.

2023). Guinac-Velasquez “does not point to any fact found by the IJ that was

ignored by the BIA, or any fact found by the BIA that was not found by the IJ.”

Id. at 979 (citation omitted).

3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Guinac-

Velasquez’s United States citizen son would not suffer “exceptional and extremely

unusual hardship” if she were removed to Guatemala. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, -

3 23-4259 -- F.4th ----, No. 21-927, 2025 WL 1440220, at *9 (9th Cir. May 20, 2025). To

demonstrate the required hardship, a petitioner must show hardship “that is

substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected

from the deportation of an alien with close family members [in the United States].”

Id. at *8 (citation omitted). Even though Guinac-Velasquez’s son has a learning

disability, he spends 80 to 100 percent of his time in regular classes and does well

in school. The BIA also determined that her son understands Spanish and would

not be deprived of the opportunity to obtain an education. See id. at *9.

PETITION DENIED.3

3 The temporary stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues. The motion to stay removal (Dkt # 39) and the supplemental motion to stay removal (Dkt. # 43) are otherwise denied.

4 23-4259