FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 20 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DEL RUFUGIO VILLALOBOS No. 18-72645
VILLALOBOS,
Agency No. A206-517-664
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 3, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, N.R. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Del Rufugio Villalobos Villalobos (“Villalobos”) petitions for review
of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing the
appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We deny the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Villalobos did not
establish a nexus to a protected ground.1 Although asylum claims require that the
persecution be based on “one central reason,” withholding of removal claims only
require “a reason” for the persecution. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d
351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). The BIA concluded that Villalobos failed to establish
that she was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground for any
reason; rather, she was targeted because of the Knights Templar’s desire to
continue its criminal efforts. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by
theft or random violence . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Notably, the
Knights Templar had extorted money from her and her family every month over a
ten-year period and, on one occasion, had physically threatened her at gunpoint
before taking all the money from the register at her parents’ store. Further,
Villalobos’s parents continue to pay monthly extortion fees. Thus, the BIA
concluded that the Knights Templar’s threat of harm after she signed the petition
1
For purposes of this conclusion the BIA assumed that Villalobos had
presented a timely asylum claim, cognizable social groups, and a political opinion.
2
was “at most, merely incidental to [its] criminal motives.” Villalobos argues that
the BIA erred in concluding that she was not persecuted on account of a protected
ground; however, to reverse the BIA, Villalobos must present “evidence [that] not
only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it.” See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). Villalobos failed to meet this strict standard of
review. Accordingly, Villalobos’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.2
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. Although the
BIA recognized that the Mexican government was not always effectual in its
efforts against the cartel, there was insufficient evidence to show that the
government and the Knights Templar worked together. Thus, Villalobos failed to
establish a clear probability that she will face torture “inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity” upon her removal to Mexico. See
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Zheng v.
Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003)); see also id. at 1034 (noting that the
mere fact “a government has been generally ineffective in preventing or
2
Because we deny the petition on the lack of nexus to a protected ground,
we need not address Villalobos’s other arguments.
3
investigating criminal activities” does not “raise an inference that public officials
are likely to acquiesce in torture”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4