Geraldina Yamilec Campos Guzman; Edwin Josue Campos Guzman; Yesser Javier Borjas Campos v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERALDINA YAMILEC CAMPOS
GUZMAN; EDWIN JOSUE CAMPOS
GUZMAN; YESSER JAVIER BORJAS
CAMPOS,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1290
Agency Nos.
A209-167-174
A209-167-175
A209-167-176
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Geraldina Yamilec Campos Guzman (Campos Guzman), and her minor
* 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 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
children, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of a decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of the denial of
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the
petition.
When the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994),
and also provides its own reasoning, we review both the IJ’s decision and the
BIA’s determination. See Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir.
2022). We review “the factual findings of the [BIA] for substantial evidence.”
Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland, 62 F.4th 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).
“Substantial evidence exists when the BIA’s conclusions are supported by
reasonable, substantial evidence, and probative evidence in the record. . . .” Id.
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “the agency’s factual
findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
1. The agency’s finding that Campos Guzman failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group is supported by substantial evidence.
Campos Guzman identified the particular social group of “Honduran single
mothers opposed to gang recruitment.” However, that proposed particular social
group is foreclosed by our precedent. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855,

-- 2 of 4 --

3
861-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting particular social group of “young Honduran men
who have been recruited by the MS-13, but who refuse to join”), abrogated in part
on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013).1 If
resistance to gang recruitment is not enough to establish a cognizable particular
social group for those directly targeted, it logically follows that it also cannot do so
for their mothers. Because Campos-Guzman failed to establish a cognizable
particular social group, substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and
withholding of removal. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 2020).
2. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. To establish
eligibility for CAT relief, an applicant must demonstrate the existence of “a
particularized threat of torture . . . inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official.” Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044,
1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citations, emphasis, and internal quotation
marks omitted). The evidence before the agency does not compel the conclusion
that Campos Guzman established a particularized risk of torture. Rather, the
evidence reflects that Campos Guzman and her son never experienced torture, and
have not been threatened with torture since leaving Honduras. See Duran-
1 Campos Guzman contends that there is a nexus between her well-founded fear of
future persecution and her proposed particular social group. However, Campos
Guzman’s failure to demonstrate a cognizable particular social group obviates any
need to address nexus. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 2020).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2019) (concluding that
substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT relief when the record did not
reflect past torture or evidence of threats of future torture). Neither did the
evidence reflect that the government would acquiesce to Petitioners’ torture.
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1035 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended
(determining that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT relief when
there was no evidence of government acquiescence).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --