Paola Yareli Garcia Barajas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAOLA YARELI GARCIA BARAJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1144
Agency No.
A205-415-094
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Paola Garcia Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing her appeal from an order of an
immigration judge denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
* 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
NOV 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-1144
Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C § 1252, we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Garcia failed to
establish past persecution. Persecution is difficult to establish when the noncitizen
“never suffered any significant physical violence.” Nagoulko v. I.N.S., 333 F.3d
1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1061 (9th
Cir. 2021) (denying petition when “the record did not demonstrate significant
physical harm”). As a teenager in Mexico, Garcia witnessed the murder of a
neighbor. Neither she nor her family experienced any physical harm as a result. The
mere fact that she was a witness to violence is insufficient to compel a finding of
past persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1017.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Garcia failed
to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. First, she presented no
evidence that anyone involved in her neighbor’s murder is now looking for her.
Second, since she has been in the United States, her family in Mexico has not
experienced any harm or threats. See Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1066 (“The ongoing safety
of family members in the petitioner’s native country undermines a reasonable fear
of future persecution.”). Third, there is no evidence that she will be called as a
witness to any criminal proceeding.
3. Given the absence of evidence establishing either past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution, we need not decide whether Garcia’s proposed

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-1144
social group is cognizable. And because Garcia “fails to satisfy the lower standard
for asylum,” she “necessarily fails to satisfy the more demanding standard for
withholding of removal.” Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2020).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --