Recinos Orozco v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 9, 2024
• Docket: 23-1130
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BEATRIZ JUVIANA RECINOS No. 23-1130 OROZCO, Agency No. A205-539-610 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 5, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE, IKUTA, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Beatriz Juviana Recinos Orozco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

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

her appeal from an order of an immigration judge (IJ) denying her applications for

* 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). asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We “review factual

findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo.” Guerra v. Barr,

974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). Under the substantial evidence standard, the

agency’s findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062,

1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation and citation omitted). We deny the

petition for review.

1. Recinos Orozco challenges the agency’s denial of her petitions for

asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA, like the IJ, assumed that Recinos

Orozco’s proposed particular social group of “women who resist gangs” was

cognizable. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Recinos Orozco failed to

demonstrate the requisite nexus between any past or future persecution in Guatemala

and a protected ground. Recinos Orozco does not meaningfully challenge the BIA’s

nexus determination and, thus, has waived review of that issue. See Martinez-

Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are

not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). Because a nexus between the

harm and a protected ground is an essential element of claims for asylum and

withholding of removal, the agency’s unchallenged nexus determination is

dispositive. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The

2 23-1130 lack of a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of [a petitioner’s] asylum and

withholding of removal claims.”).

Moreover, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Recinos Orozco failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of

removal. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013)

(“[M]istreatment motivated purely by personal retribution will not give rise to a

valid asylum claim.”) (citing Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011)

(per curiam)); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s

desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random

violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”).

2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection.

The record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that

Recinos Orozco would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government

if returned to Guatemala. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th

Cir. 2010) (evidence of generalized violence and crime in Mexico not particular to

petitioners did not satisfy the petitioners’ burden).

PETITION DENIED.

3 23-1130