Lopez Lopez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-540
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUCELI ELIZABETH LOPEZ No. 24-540 LOPEZ; HENRY BLADIMIR TISTA Agency Nos. CASTANEDA; OSTIN BLADIMIR TISTA A220-590-711 LOPEZ, A220-590-712 A220-590-713 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 3, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: GILMAN***, M. SMITH, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, sitting by designation. Petitioners Suceli Elizabeth Lopez Lopez, Henry Bladimir Tista-Castaneda,

and their minor child petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of a ruling by an Immigration Judge (IJ) that

denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition for review.

1. The BIA did not err in denying Petitioners’ claims for asylum and

withholding of removal. Petitioners argue that they were persecuted in the past and

have a well-founded fear of future persecution due to their membership in two

particular social groups: (1) Guatemalan business owners, and (2) the Lopez family.

We review de novo whether a particular social group is cognizable. Nguyen v. Barr,

983 F.3d 1099, 1101 (9th Cir. 2020). As to the first proposed group, the BIA

correctly concluded that Guatemalan business owners do not constitute a cognizable

social group. We held in Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 882–83 (9th

Cir. 2021), that the proposed group of “wealthy business owners” was not cognizable

because, among other things, business ownership is “not fundamental to an

individual’s identity” and is therefore not immutable. Petitioners give us no reason

to reject the application of that holding in the present case.

As to the second proposed group, the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioners failed

to establish a nexus between their family ties and the harm that they suffered is

2 24-540 supported by substantial evidence, which is the appropriate standard of review for

factual determinations. See Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 750 (9th

Cir. 2021). The BIA reasonably concluded that the adult Petitioners were targeted

for extortion solely because of their wealth and that the gang’s only motivation in

attempting to kidnap Petitioners’ son was to force Petitioners to comply with the

gang’s extortion demands.

We have held previously that “[w]here the record indicates that the

persecutor’s actual motivation for threatening a person is to extort money from a

third person, the record does not compel finding that the persecutor threatened the

target because of a protected characteristic such as family relation.” Rodriguez-

Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2023). Because Petitioners have

not shown a nexus between a cognizable particular social group and the harm they

suffered, their asylum and withholding claims fail. See id. at 1016 (“For both asylum

and withholding claims, a petitioner must prove a causal nexus between one of her

statutorily protected characteristics and either her past harm or her objectively

tenable fear of future harm.”).

2. As to Petitioners’ CAT claims, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

determination that Petitioners failed to show that they would more likely than not be

tortured by or with the consent or the acquiescence of a public official upon their

return to Guatemala. The harm that Petitioners suffered in the past does not rise to

3 24-540 the level of torture, and there is no evidence that the gang members sought out

Petitioners or their family members after the extortion deadline passed. See Garcia

v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[S]peculative fear of torture is

not sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s burden.”).

Moreover, the country conditions report submitted by Petitioners

demonstrates only that the Guatemalan government has been ineffective in

controlling crime—not that government officials would consent to or acquiesce in

the gang’s activities. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir.

2014) (“Nor does evidence that a government has been generally ineffective in

preventing or investigating criminal activities raise an inference that public officials

are likely to acquiesce in torture, absent evidence of corruption or other inability or

unwillingness to oppose criminal organizations.”).

PETITION DENIED.

4 24-540