Sanchez La Torre v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 10, 2025
• Docket: 24-2106
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGUEL ANGEL SANCHEZ LA No. 24-2106 TORRE; YAQUELINE KRISTIMEN LIZA Agency Nos. ALVAREZ; SABRINA AKIRA A241-910-452 YACKELIN SANCHEZ LIZA; ANGHEL A241-910-453 GIANLUCCA DE JESUS SANCHEZ A241-910-454 LIZA, A241-910-455 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 8, 2025** Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, CLIFTON, and BENNETT, 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 this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Miguel Angel Sanchez La Torre, Yaqueline Kristimen Liza Alvarez, and their

two minor children (together “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Peru, seek review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration

Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition for

review. “[O]ur review ‘is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the

IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th

Cir. 2010) (quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). “In

reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that

agency.” Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioners

failed to establish any nexus between their alleged persecution and a protected

ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) and 1231(b)(3)(A). Nothing in the record

suggests that the unfortunate incidents which Petitioners experienced were related

to a protected characteristic. At no point did Petitioners indicate that their

persecutors communicated anything related to their proposed particular social

groups while they robbed, assaulted, or attempted to kidnap them. Threats and

mistreatment, when based solely on a desire for financial gain, bear no nexus to a

protected ground. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An

2 24-2106 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.”). Failure to

establish a nexus is dispositive of Petitioners’ claims for both asylum and

withholding of removal. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir.

2016).

Having determined that substantial evidence supports the agency’s nexus

determination, we decline to consider Petitioners’ remaining arguments as to

whether their alleged harms rise to the level of past persecution, or whether they are

unable to safely relocate to Peru. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25–26

(1976) (per curiam).

As to Petitioners’ CAT claim, the record does not compel the conclusion that

it is “more likely than not” that they will be tortured if removed to Peru. Nuru v.

Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Petitioners have

failed to demonstrate past torture and have provided no evidence that the attackers

are still interested in them. See Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023)

(“The record must show that it is more likely than not that the petitioner will face a

particularized and non-speculative risk of torture.”). Moreover, the generalized

country conditions evidence to which Petitioners cite is “insufficient to meet [the

CAT] standard.” Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per

3 24-2106 curiam). Substantial evidence thus supports the agency’s conclusion that any fear

of future harm is speculative.

The motion for a stay of removal [Dkt. Entry No. 3] is denied. The temporary

stay of removal is lifted.

PETITION DENIED.

4 24-2106