Opinion
23-3577
12-04-2024
GILBERTO ISAEL LOPEZ- HERNANDEZ; NANCY ADALI COLLADO-JUAREZ; SASHA SAMANTA LOPEZ-COLLADO; JOSE LOPEZ- COLLADO, Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 7, 2024[**] Pasadena, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A220-691-291, A220-562-932, A220-562-933, A220-562-934
Before: CALLAHAN, WALLACH[***], and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Gilberto Isael Lopez-Hernandez, his wife, and their two minor children, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). The applications were predicated on Lopez-Hernandez's testimony that he received four anonymous phone calls between October 2020 and June 2021. The unknown caller requested money from him and threatened that if Lopez-Hernandez did not pay the money, his family would be harmed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
Lopez-Hernandez's wife and children are derivative beneficiaries of his asylum application. Also, Lopez-Hernandez's wife and their two minor children filed their own applications. Since all of the claims are based on the same facts as those of Lopez-Hernandez and all of the IJ's and BIA's findings and legal analysis are applicable to all, we only refer to Lopez-Hernandez and his application.
Where, as here, the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law and incorporates some of the IJ's findings, we review the BIA's reasoning and "those parts of the IJ's decision upon which it relies." Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Aliv. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2011)). We review the BIA's factual findings under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard, and review both purely legal questions and mixed questions of law and fact de novo. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000)). Under the substantial evidence standard, we must uphold the BIA's determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See id.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Lopez-Hernandez is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Lopez-Hernandez failed to identify a nexus between any alleged past persecution or fear of future persecution and a protected ground. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that a "lack of a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of [a petitioner's] asylum and withholding of removal claims" (citations omitted)). Lopez-Hernandez testified that he did not know the caller's identity. Also, besides requesting money and threatening Lopez-Hernandez's family, the caller never said anything else that could suggest that the motive for the extortion was anything other than a general desire for financial gain. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ("An [immigrant'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" (citations omitted)).
Additionally, as to his claim that an anti-gang political opinion was imputed to him by refusing to pay the money requested, the claim is unavailing. We have held that the mere refusal to comply with criminal demands, without more, does not establish a "political opinion." See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008), abrogated in part on other grounds by Hernandez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Because the record does not compel reversal of the BIA's nexus determination, Lopez-Hernandez's asylum and withholding of removal claims necessarily fail. See Riera-Riera, 841 F.3d at 1081.
Since the nexus requirement is dispositive of both asylum and withholding of removal claims, we need not review Lopez-Hernandez's additional claims. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the result they reach." (citation omitted)).
2. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. The record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Lopez-Hernandez would be tortured if removed to Guatemala either by the government or with its acquiescence. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009). Lopez-Hernandez did not testify that he fears the government or that they were involved in the threatening calls. Rather he testified that he fears general "delinquency" in Guatemala. Additionally, Lopez-Hernandez submitted country conditions reports discussing torture in Guatemala. Country conditions show the struggles the general population suffer, but Lopez-Hernandez failed to show that he, in particular, faces a risk of torture. This Court has consistently held that "generalized evidence of violence and crime . . . is not particular to [a] Petitioner and is insufficient to" establish eligibility for CAT relief. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010); Gutierrez v. Garland, 106 F.4th 866, 880 (9th Cir. 2024) (same); see also Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (upholding the denial of CAT relief where "country reports submitted do not indicate any particularized risk of torture").
Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of CAT relief because Lopez-Hernandez's fears of general violence are insufficient to show a particularized risk of torture.
PETITION DENIED.
[*] 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 Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.