Norma Angelica Jimenez Alejandres; America Natali Munoz Jimenez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMA ANGELICA JIMENEZ
ALEJANDRES; AMERICA NATALI
MUNOZ JIMENEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1864
Agency Nos.
A209-395-034
A209-395-035
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 1, 2024**
Portland, Oregon
Before: OWENS and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK, 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 William Horsley Orrick, United States District Judge
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 3 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 22-1864
Norma Angelica Jimenez Alejandres (“Jimenez”), a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
decision dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The asylum application
of her daughter and co-petitioner, America Natali Munoz Jiminez, is derivative of
Jimenez’s application, and her daughter’s application for withholding of removal
depends on Jimenez’s application. “Because the BIA conducted a de novo review
of the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision except to the extent
that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted by the BIA.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988
F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks
omitted). The BIA’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and its factual
findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, meaning that its
determinations are upheld unless “the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.”
Id. (citation omitted). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount
them here. We deny the petition.
1. Asylum applicants must demonstrate “persecution or a well-founded fear
of persecution on account of [a protected ground],” also known as the nexus
requirement. Id. at 1142-43 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)); see also Reyes v.
Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016). Applicants “must prove causal
connection” with direct or circumstantial evidence that the persecution was on

-- 2 of 4 --

3 22-1864
account of a protected ground. Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1486-87 (9th Cir.
1997).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum based on its
determination that Jimenez failed to establish a nexus between past or future
persecution and her proposed particular social groups (immediate family members
of Eduardo Jimenez, her deceased son, or of Gerardo Alejandres, her cousin).
Regarding the murders of her son Eduardo and other family members, Jimenez
testified that she believed Eduardo was viewed as a rival cartel member and there
were no other reasons he would have been targeted. Further, Jimenez testified that
the cartel would want to harm her because she reported Eduardo’s kidnapping to
the police, not because of her family membership. Finally, Jimenez testified that
her other family members still living in Mexico have not been harmed. See
Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Ponce’s claim
of future persecution is undermined by the fact that he has other family members
living unharmed in Honduras.”).
2. Withholding of removal applicants must demonstrate that “a cognizable
protected ground is ‘a reason’ for future persecution.” Garcia, 988 F.3d at 1146
(citation omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal
because Jimenez failed to establish any nexus between the alleged persecution and

-- 3 of 4 --

4 22-1864
her proposed particular social groups. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th
1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023) (noting that the nexus standard required for withholding
of removal is lower than for asylum, but when the petitioner has not shown “any
nexus whatsoever,” both claims fail).
3. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --