Zulma Elizabeth Rodriguez Arriola; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZULMA ELIZABETH RODRIGUEZ
ARRIOLA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72782
Agency Nos. A208-306-803
A208-306-804
A208-306-805
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 1, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Zulma Elizabeth Rodriguez Arriola, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and
her two minor daughters (collectively, Petitioners), petition for review of the order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from a
* 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
FEB 1 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying 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 denial of
asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence.”
Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). “Under this
standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a
contrary conclusion.” Id. We deny the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Petitioners’ applications
for asylum. An asylum applicant “must demonstrate that [s]he has suffered past
persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Id.; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners did
not show the required nexus between any alleged harm and Petitioners’
membership in their proposed social group, “members of the Rodriguez Arriola
family targeted by gangs.” See Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.
2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)) (to prevail on asylum claim, applicant
must show that the protected ground was “at least one central reason” the applicant
was persecuted). As the BIA and IJ recognized, Rodriguez Arriola testified that
the gangs targeted and demanded money from all vendors in the market, not just

-- 2 of 4 --

3
her. Rodriguez Arriola further admitted that the gangs targeted vendors based on
the vendor’s products and the amount of money the gangs believed they could
solicit from the vendor, and not for any other reason. Harm on account of general
crime and violence does not establish a nexus to a protected ground. See Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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.”).
2. For the same reason, substantial evidence supports the denial of
Petitioners’ applications for withholding of removal. See Macedo Templos v.
Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 881–82 (9th Cir. 2021) (to establish entitlement to
withholding of removal, applicant alleging harm based on membership in a
particular social group must show that membership in the group is “a reason” for
the mistreatment).
3. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. An
applicant for CAT relief must demonstrate that she “will more likely than not be
tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed” to her
native country. Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).
Petitioners did not put forward evidence compelling the conclusion that it is more
likely than not that they will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the
Guatemalan government. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034–35

-- 3 of 4 --

4
(9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that “[e]vidence that the police were aware of a
particular crime, but failed to bring the perpetrators to justice,” or evidence that a
government “has been generally ineffective in preventing or investigating criminal
activities,” without “evidence of corruption or other inability or unwillingness to
oppose criminal organizations,” is insufficient to establish acquiescence).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --