Neri Vasquez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NERI VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-565
Agency No.
A208-081-671
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 6, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District
Judge.***
Neri Vasquez (“Vasquez”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of a decision by the (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an immigration
* 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 Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 22-565
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
to review the agency decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Where, as here, the BIA
adopts the immigration judge’s decision and also adds its own reasons, we review
both decisions.” Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation
omitted). Reviewing legal questions de novo and the agency’s factual findings for
substantial evidence, Kumar v. Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2013), we deny
the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Vasquez
has not demonstrated a clear probability of future persecution in Guatemala on
account of a protected ground. Vasquez argues that the murder of his cousin’s son,
Santos, is an incidence of past persecution that can be imputed to him and thus
indicate the likelihood of his future persecution. Though a finding of past
persecution on account of a protected ground would give rise to a “rebuttable
presumption of eligibility for withholding of removal,” Flores Molina v. Garland,
37 F.4th 626, 638 (9th Cir. 2022), the record reflects only that Santos was killed
“for being with a girl that had a boyfriend.” This does not suggest a protected
ground, and allegations of isolated violence against family members are
insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Arriaga-
Barrientos v. I.N.S., 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991).

-- 2 of 4 --

3 22-565
Nor did the agency err in rejecting his proposed social groups of
“Guatemalan men returning to Guatemala” and “people returning from the United
States after extensive absences” as overbroad.1 Vasquez reasons that these groups
include individuals who have assimilated into American culture and thus differ
from other returnee-based social groups that we have rejected. See Delgado-Ortiz
v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151 –52 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “‘returning
Mexicans from the United States’ . . . is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social
group”). Even if we accept that assimilation into American culture is an
immutable characteristic, the fact that some members of his proposed groups may
have assimilated does not address the groups’ overbreadth or distinguish them
from the group rejected in Delgado-Ortiz. The particularity and social distinction
requirements for establishing a cognizable social group remain unsatisfied. See
Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1077 (9th Cir. 2020).
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Vasquez failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. Vasquez
argues that the “Board incorrectly determined that the record lacks any evidence”
1 Vasquez forfeited any challenge to the agency’s rejection of “Guatemalan men
opposing gang violence” as a social group by failing to make an argument
applicable to that group in his opening brief. See Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12
F.4th 942, 959 (9th Cir. 2021).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 22-565
that he would be tortured and that there is a strong likelihood he would “be a
victim of harm that could constitute torture” if he returned to Guatemala. But
Vasquez points to no evidence in the record to support either claim, and he makes
no arguments regarding why the record compels the Board’s finding to be
overturned. Such conclusory statements are insufficient to meet his burden of
proving eligibility for CAT protection.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --