Lopez-Carrillo v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 16, 2023
• Docket: 21-742
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODRIGO LOPEZ-CARRILLO, No. 21-742

Petitioner, Agency No. A208-305-953

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 14, 2023** Pasadena, California

Before: BRESS and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN, *** District Judge.

Rodrigo Lopez Carrillo (Carrillo), a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 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 Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s decision for

substantial evidence. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021).

“Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the

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

1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding

of removal. To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to

demonstrate “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). “To be eligible for withholding of

removal, the petitioner must discharge this burden by a clear probability.”

Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1059. To obtain relief, the petitioner must show that his past

or feared persecution bears a nexus to a protected ground. Garcia v. Wilkinson,

988 F.3d 1136, 1143, 1146–48 (9th Cir. 2021). For asylum, the petitioner must

show that a protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for the

persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). For withholding of removal, there is

a nexus if the petitioner shows that a protected ground was “a reason” for the

past or feared harm. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir.

2017).

Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Carrillo

had not met the nexus requirement. There is no evidence that the gangs knew of

2 21-742 any anti-gang political opinion that Carrillo may have held. Thus, substantial

evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Carrillo had not established a

nexus between any alleged persecution and an imputed political opinion. Singh

v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153, 1159 (“To demonstrate a nexus between [petitioner’s]

mistreatment and an imputed political opinion, [petitioner] must show (1) that

. . . his persecutors believed that he held . . . a political opinion; and (2) that he

was harmed because of that political opinion.” (citation and quotation marks

omitted)).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Carrillo’s

other claimed bases for persecution lacked the required nexus. The BIA could

conclude that Carrillo presented insufficient evidence suggesting that he was

targeted because of his family membership. The record does not compel the

conclusion that the gangs knew Carrillo and his cousin were related, nor does it

indicate that the people who approached his mother were motivated by any

familial ties. Similarly, as the BIA noted, there was insufficient evidence that

the gangs persecuted Carrillo on the basis of his reports to the police. Thus, the

record does not compel the conclusion that there was a nexus between Carrillo’s

proposed social group of “witnesses who testify against gang members” and any

alleged persecution.

2. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. An

applicant for CAT relief bears the burden of establishing that he “will more

likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official

3 21-742 if removed to h[is] native country.” Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175,

1183 (9th Cir. 2020). Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

determination that Carrillo had not met that burden when his fear of torture was

based only on general police weakness, corruption, and gang violence. See

Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[G]eneral

ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will

not suffice to show acquiescence.”). The record does not compel the opposite

conclusion.

PETITION DENIED.

4 21-742