United States v. 2020-07-23 | 19-71289 | EDGAR CARRILLO-RAMOS V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGAR MANUEL CARRILLO-RAMOS;
et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71289

Agency Nos. A208-126-369
A208-124-955
A208-124-956

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Edgar Manuel Carrillo-Ramos, Maldilla Velazquez-Carrillo, and their son,
natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

*
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).
FILED

JUL 23 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-71289
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and grant in
part the petition for review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
petitioners failed to establish the harm they experienced or fear was or would be on
account of religion, political opinion, or gender. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.
2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant
must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in
such group”); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that
gang victimization for economic and personal reasons did not occur on account of
a political opinion). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s

3 19-71289
determination that Carrillo-Ramos failed to establish a nexus to his family-based
social group. See Ayala, 640 F.3d at 1097.
However, the agency found the threats Velazquez-Carrillo and her son
received did not have a nexus to their familial relationship with Carrillo-Ramos.
Substantial evidence does not support that determination. See Baghdasaryan v.
Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (remanding where testimony
compelled conclusion that petitioner was harmed, at least in part, on account of a
protected ground); see also Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th
Cir. 2017) (holding that the less demanding “a reason” standard applies to
withholding of removal claims); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th
Cir. 2009) (an asylum applicant establishes that a protected ground was “one
central reason” for persecution where the persecutor would not have harmed the
applicant absent that motive). Thus, we grant the petition for review, and remand
their asylum and withholding of removal claims to the agency for further
proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-
18 (2002) (per curiam).
The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.