NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 11 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTORIA LUCAS PABLO, I.C.-L. and No. 17-70702
W.C.-L.,
Agency Nos. A208-124-129,
Petitioners, A208-124-130 and A202-157-793
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 8, 2019**
Seattle, Washington
Before: WATFORD, MILLER, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, *** District Judge.
Victoria Lucas Pablo, I.C.-L. and W.C.-L., natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
*
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 Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
(BIA) upholding the conclusions of the immigration judge (IJ) that neither race nor
membership in a particular social group was the reason for past persecution, thus
disqualifying petitioners for asylum and withholding of removal. They also
petition for review of the BIA’s decision upholding the IJ’s conclusion that
petitioners are not entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(1), and we deny the
petitions.
The BIA’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. We uphold the
BIA’s decision unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary” based on evidence in the record. 8 U.S.C.
' 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992); Bringas-
Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).
To establish asylum eligibility, an applicant must show that she is unable or
unwilling to return to her country of nationality because of 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); see
also 8 U.S.C. ' 1158(b)(1)(A). For Lucas Pablo, although the harm she suffered
was significant, evidence that past persecution was on account of her indigenous
race or membership in her particular social group was equivocal at best. The BIA
noted that her persecutors made no mention of her race. The BIA also noted that
2 17-70702
the men who attacked Lucas Pablo “sought her out for illicit purposes and illegal
activities,” and that their criminal attacks were not related to any protected ground.
Because evidence of a persecutor’s motive is critical, “to obtain judicial reversal of
the Board’s determination, [s]he must show that the evidence [s]he presented was
so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.” Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84). A reasonable factfinder would not be
compelled to find either that Lucas Pablo’s race or particular social group was “one
central reason” for the persecution (the nexus standard for asylum) or that it was “a
reason” for the persecution (the nexus standard for withholding-of-removal).
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus,
petitioners’ claims fail.
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to challenge the agency’s denial of
CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Thus, we deny the petition as to CAT relief.
PETITION DENIED.
3 17-70702