NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTA ELIZABETH PORRES- No. 20-72092
SANCHEZ; LUIS LOPEZ-PORRES,
Agency Nos. A209-984-671
Petitioners, A209-984-672
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: BYBEE and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON,*** District
Judge.
Petitioners Marta Elizabeth Porres-Sanchez and her son Luis Lopez-Porres,
*
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 Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for
the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.
natives and citizens of Guatemala, seek review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252 and deny the petitions.
We review the BIA’s factual findings, including whether a petitioner was
persecuted on account of a protected ground, for substantial evidence. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). “To reverse [a] finding we must find
that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it.” Id. at 481 n.1.
To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, Petitioners
had to show a nexus between their feared persecution and membership in their
claimed particular social groups. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th
Cir. 2010). The BIA found that Petitioners had not established any nexus because
the evidence showed that the gang’s only motive for its extortion and threats of
violence was money. See id. at 1016 (“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.”). This finding was supported by substantial
evidence, as Porres-Sanchez testified that the gang targeted her, her husband, and
her brothers because they all worked and had money, and that the gang targets
anyone who works and has money. She also testified that the gang stopped
2
threatening her husband when he had no money. Because substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s no nexus finding, Petitioners’ asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.1
Petitioners’ CAT claim also fails because substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s finding that Petitioners failed to show that they will more likely than not be
tortured in Guatemala. See Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir.
2008) (per curiam). Porres-Sanchez testified that neither she nor Luis had ever
been directly threatened or tortured by the gang. And as pointed out by the BIA,
Porres-Sanchez’s husband and their other children, whom the gang also threatened
to harm if her husband failed to pay, continue to live in Guatemala and have not
been harmed by the gang. Significantly, no one in Petitioners’ family has been
harmed even though Porres-Sanchez’s husband stopped paying the gang in 2017.
This evidence provides substantial support for the BIA’s finding. Cf. Lim v. INS,
224 F.3d 929, 935 (9th Cir. 2000) (“This court has allowed ongoing family safety
to mitigate a well-founded fear, particularly where the family is similarly situated
to the applicant and thus presumably subject to similar risk.”).2
1
We need not address the BIA’s findings on Petitioners’ proposed particular social
groups because Petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims necessarily
fail for lack of nexus.
2
Because Petitioners’ CAT claim fails absent a showing that it is more likely than
not that they will face torture in Guatemala, we need not address the BIA’s finding
that the CAT claim also fails for lack of evidence showing that any torture would
be inflicted with the consent or acquiescence of a government official.
3
PETITIONS DENIED.
4