Juana Cordova Martinez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUANA CORDOVA MARTINEZ, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-642
Agency Nos. A209-162-384
A209-162-386
A209-162-376
A206-352-099
A209-162-385
A209-162-377
A209-162-375
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2023**
Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Lead Petitioner Juana Cordova Martinez (“Cordova Martinez”); her husband
Rafael Andrade Martinez; their two minor children J.D.A.C. and J.A.A.C.; their
* 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 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 22-642
adult child Juana Andrade Cordova (“Juana”); and Juana’s two minor children
J.R.S.A. and J.G.S.A, (collectively, “Petitioners”), all natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order. The BIA summarily affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying Petitioners’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s
decision as the final agency determination. Renteria-Morales v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d
1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners failed
to establish a sufficient nexus between the alleged harm suffered, and membership
in the particular social group (“PSG”) of “members of the Cordova Martinez
family.” See Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch, 849 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
Petitioners’ requested relief stems from the deaths of two family members and the
disappearance of another, as well as threats to Petitioners themselves. Yet,
Petitioners could not identify the individuals who abducted or killed their family
members, nor could they describe a connection between the incidents. Similarly,
Petitioners did not know the individuals who threatened them on four separate
occasions. In the absence of any evidence regarding the persecutors’ potential

-- 2 of 4 --

3 22-642
motives, the IJ reasonably concluded that Petitioners failed to establish nexus to a
protected ground. See Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019).1
Substantial evidence likewise supports the IJ’s determination that Petitioners
failed to carry their burden of proving that they had a well-founded fear of
persecution in Mexico. Cordova Martinez and her husband were twice threatened
with negative consequences in connection with their search for their missing son.
They reported the threats to the police and continued their search without further
incident. The record does not compel the conclusion that any of the men who
threatened Petitioners had a continued interest in them. See Sharma v. Garland, 9
F.4th 1052, 1065 (9th Cir. 2021).
Because Petitioners failed to satisfy the lower standard for asylum, they
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because
Petitioners failed to show they will more likely than not be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Xochihua-
Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
Petitioners have not been tortured in the past, nor have they met their burden of
1 Given the lack of nexus, we need not address whether Petitioners’ proposed PSG
made up of members of the Cordova Martinez family is cognizable in this case.

-- 3 of 4 --

4 22-642
demonstrating an individualized risk of torture. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600
F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (holding that “generalized evidence of
violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to
meet [the CAT] standard”).
Finally, Petitioners have neither preserved nor exhausted the remainder of
their claims. To the extent that Petitioners raise constitutional challenges and request
cancellation of removal for the first time in their opening brief, we decline to
consider these claims. See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1112 (2023)
(holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)’s administrative exhaustion requirement is a
“quintessential claim-processing rule,” not a jurisdictional bar).
PETITION DENIED.2
2 Because we deny the petition for review, we also deny as moot Petitioners’ motion
for stay of removal (ECF No. 2).

-- 4 of 4 --