FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 12 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIKA RAMOS JIMENEZ, No. 16-71553
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-489-929
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 8, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Erika Ramos Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision that denied her applications
*
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).
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial
evidence, Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018), and we deny the
petition.
1. Petitioner asserts that she fears harm because she is a member of a
particular social group—persons with perceived wealth. But the IJ found, and the
BIA affirmed as not clearly erroneous, that Petitioner failed to show that the home
invasion robbery she suffered was “on account of” her membership in that
purported social group.1 Rather, the BIA ruled that Petitioner had not satisfied her
burden of establishing the necessary nexus to any protected group because she was
simply the unfortunate victim of random criminal activity, citing among other
things our decisions in Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004),
and Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 866 (9th Cir. 2001). The evidence does not
1
The IJ also ruled in the alternative that the purported social group is not
cognizable. Our court has agreed in other cases. See, e.g., Macedo Templos v.
Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 881 (9th Cir. 2021) (rejecting the proposed social group
of “wealthy business owners” in Mexico); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d
1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding “that the proposed group of ‘imputed wealthy
Americans’ is not a discrete class of persons recognized by society as a particular
social group”). But the BIA relied on nexus only. Therefore, we do not reach the
question whether the purported social group is cognizable. See Andia v. Ashcroft,
359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“In reviewing the decision of
the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”).
2
compel a contrary conclusion. Because Petitioner failed to establish nexus, the
BIA permissibly denied her application for asylum. See Zetino v. Holder, 622
F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a non-citizen’s desire to be free from
criminal activity “bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
2. With respect to withholding of removal, the BIA erred by applying the
standard of “one central reason,” instead of the standard of “a reason.” See
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). Nevertheless, we
need not remand the petition, because the BIA permissibly found that there was no
nexus established. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016.
3. Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief.
The BIA determined that Petitioner failed to show that it is more likely than not
that she would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, the government if
returned to Mexico. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir.
2014) (stating standard). The record does not compel a contrary finding.
PETITION DENIED.
3