Wendy Jeaneth Tziquin- Guachiac v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENDY JEANETH TZIQUIN-
GUACHIAC,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-788
Agency No.
A216-442-404
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration Judge
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Wendy Jeaneth Tziquin-Guachiac, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under
8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g) that she did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or
torture in Guatemala and is not entitled to relief from her reinstated removal
order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative
* 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
JUL 6 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-788
reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v.
Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.
We do not disturb the IJ’s determination that Tziquin-Guachiac failed to
establish a reasonable possibility that she suffered harm that rises to the level of
persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009)
(petitioner’s past experiences, including two beatings, even considered
cumulatively, did not compel a finding of past persecution); see also Flores
Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve
whether de novo or substantial evidence review applies, where result would be
the same under either standard).
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Tziquin-Guachiac
failed to show a reasonable possibility that the harm she fears would be on
account of a protected ground. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814
(9th Cir. 2018) (no basis for withholding of removal where petitioner did not
show a nexus to a protected ground). We reject as unsupported by the record
Tziquin-Guachiac’s contention that the IJ ignored issues or otherwise erred in
analyzing her claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Tziquin-
Guachiac failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37 (petitioner failed to demonstrate
government acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-788
future torture).
The temporary stay of removal remains in effect until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --