Jose Silvino Colorado Hernandez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE SILVINO COLORADO
HERNANDEZ; YOSEF MISAEL
MORENO SALAZAR; SAORY IRANY
SALAZAR ALVAREZ; TAEMY ZOE
COLORADO SALAZAR; YARIANA
YAMILETH MORENO
SALAZAR; DAFINE GUADALUPE
MORENO SALAZAR; KARINA
SALAZAR ALVAREZ,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1990
Agency Nos.
A201-496-726
A201-496-728
A201-496-731
A201-496-732
A201-496-730
A201-496-729
A201-496-727
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 4, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: N.R. SMITH, SANCHEZ, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
* 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
DEC 6 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 22-1990
Petitioners are a family of Mexican nationals1 seeking review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s
denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petitions
for review.2
Petitioners concede they are removable, and acknowledge they bear the
burden of demonstrating eligibility for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). We
review the agency’s determinations of ineligibility for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence, and “reverse . . . only where ‘any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Hussain
v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 646 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
Petitioners challenge the agency’s conclusion that they failed to establish past
persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, based on membership in
a particular social group, namely as members of their family or as imputed owners
of a family member’s business.3
1 Jose Silvino Colorado Hernandez, the lead petitioner, and his common-law
spouse Karina Salazar Alvarez are the parents of the remaining petitioners, who are
derivative applicants for relief.
2 Petitioners’ concurrently filed motion to stay removal is denied as moot.
3 To the extent that Petitioners had presented other particular social groups
as potential grounds for their asylum claim, they have not done so on appeal, and
so have forfeited any such arguments. See Olea-Serefina v. Garland, 34 F.4th 856,
867 (9th Cir. 2022).

-- 2 of 4 --

3 22-1990
Petitioners must show that they were “individually targeted on account of a
protected ground.” Hussain, 985 F.3d at 641–42. Their testimony, however, did
not establish any act that singled them out on account of a protected ground.
Rather, it established only that their family member’s business had been targeted
for refusing to pay extortion. Although Petitioners had been employed at the
business, which ceased operation after the extortion attempt, they testified that they
were not targets of persecution during the following months while they remained
in Mexico. Petitioners have established a credible “desire to be free from
harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence,” but have not
demonstrated past persecution based on a protected ground. Zetino v. Holder, 622
F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
Petitioners have also failed to establish a likelihood of future persecution
based on membership in the asserted social groups: they have presented no
evidence that other employees of the business or members of their family who
continue to live in Mexico have experienced persecution, see Kaur v. Garland, 2
F.4th 823, 835 (9th Cir. 2021) (weighing “safety of similarly situated members of
the family who remained in the country of origin”), nor that those who attempted
to extort their family member’s business have any knowledge of Petitioners’
familial or business relationship. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s conclusion that Petitioners had not established eligibility for asylum.

-- 3 of 4 --

4 22-1990
Petitioners likewise failed to meet their burden as to withholding of removal,
which requires showing a “clear probability of future persecution.” Gutierrez-Alm
v. Garland, 62 F.4th 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2023). Because Petitioners did not
establish a likelihood of future persecution, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s conclusion that Petitioners had not established eligibility for withholding
of removal.
On appeal, Petitioners presented only a conclusory allegation that they are
eligible for CAT relief and have offered no “factual detail or legal argument.”
Olea-Serefina, 34 F.4th at 867. Accordingly, their argument for CAT relief is
forfeited. See id.
PETITIONS DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --