FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 22 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SILVIA ESTEBAN TOMAS-MIGUEL; No. 18-71545
MIGUEL ZACARIAS-TOMAS,
Agency Nos. A202-069-943
Petitioners, A202-069-944
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 9, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: FERNANDEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,*** District
Judge.
*
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 Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Silvia Esteban Tomas-Miguel and her son,1 natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of asylum,2
withholding of removal,3 and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”).4 We deny the petition.
(1) Tomas asserts that the BIA erred when it determined that she had not
shown that her persecution by her father had a nexus to any of the three particular
social groups she proposed. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A),
(C). We disagree.
Substantial evidence5 supports the BIA’s conclusion that the persecution had
no nexus to the first group, “female members of the Esteban Tomas Jesus family.”
Tomas recounted that her father indiscriminately beat people, including male
1
Because Tomas’s son’s application is derivative of hers, the analysis as to
her petition also applies to his.
2
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1).
3
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
4
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No.
100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18.
5
See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815, 117 L.
Ed. 2d 38 (1992); see also Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2019)
(per curiam).
2
family members and non-family members, especially when he was drunk. He
treated Tomas with the brutality that he also treated others who disagreed with or
annoyed him. Thus, the record does not compel a finding that membership in this
group was a reason, much less one central reason, for the alleged persecution. See
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–60 (9th Cir. 2017).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Tomas is not a
member of the second group—“Guatemalan women unable to leave a domestic
relationship with their father”—because she moved out of her father’s house and
was not harmed by him for the approximately five years before she left Guatemala
and came to the United States.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the third
group—“Guatemalan women who are viewed as property by virtue of their
domestic relationship with their father”—is not cognizable because it lacks
particularity and social distinction. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1242 (9th Cir. 2020); Garay Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1135–36, 1139–40
(9th Cir. 2016). For example, while the expert and country-condition reports
indicate that there are high rates of violence against women in Guatemala, the
reports do not shed any light on whether society would recognize this group as
distinct.
3
Because Tomas has not shown that she was persecuted with a nexus to any
protected ground, we deny the petition for review based on her asylum and
withholding of removal claims.
(2) The evidence in the record does not compel a determination that Tomas
was or would be tortured “by or . . . with the . . . acquiescence of a public official.”
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see also Eneh v. Holder, 601 F.3d 943, 946–47 (9th Cir.
2010). Indeed, Tomas has not shown that public officials were aware of her
father’s actions. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016).
Thus, she is not entitled to CAT relief. Id.
Petition DENIED.
4