Pascual Jimenez Miguel; Matias Jimenez Juan v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PASCUAL JIMENEZ MIGUEL; MATIAS
JIMENEZ JUAN,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-168
Agency Nos.
A209-133-909
A209-133-910
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, District
Judge.***
Pascual Jimenez Miguel and Matias Jimenez Juan (“Petitioners”), natives
* 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 Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOV 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-168
and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial
of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for
substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir.
2017) (en banc). We deny the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Petitioners failed to
show a nexus between their race or membership in the social group of “Akateko
men in Guatemala” and the harm they experienced. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A);
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Petitioners failed to present specific evidence that
robbers targeted Pascual or that gang members targeted Matias because they are
Akateko. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting
asylum applicants must show that a protected ground was “one central reason” for
the persecutor’s actions); see also Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358
(9th Cir. 2017) (noting withholding of removal applicants must show that a
protected ground was “a reason” for the persecutor’s actions). Petitioners do not
link their indigenous identity to these incidents and instead argue only that
indigenous people are generally treated poorly in Guatemala. And an individual’s
“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-168
violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Petitioners are not
eligible for CAT relief. Petitioners’ reliance on the Guatemalan government’s
general treatment of indigenous people is insufficient to warrant CAT relief.
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that
evidence of a risk of torture must be particularized to the applicant and that
“generalized evidence of violence and crime . . . is insufficient”).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --