Rosa Maria Fuentes Maldonado v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA MARIA FUENTES
MALDONADO; YOENI AMANECER
SAUCEDO FUENTES; CARLOS ISRAEL
SAUCEDO FUENTES,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-602
Agency Nos.
A215-548-015
A215-548-016
A215-548-017
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 4, 2024**
San Francisco, California
Before: M. SMITH, HURWITZ, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
Rosa María Fuentes Maldonado and her minor children, natives and citizens
of Mexico, seek review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals
* 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
APR 8 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 23-602
(“BIA”) dismissing their appeal of an order from an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where “the BIA expresse[s]
agreement with the reasoning of the IJ,” we review both decisions. Kumar v.
Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2013). We review legal conclusions de novo
and factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. We deny the petition.
1. Fuentes Maldonado argues that the IJ should have considered whether
she demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her membership
in two proposed social groups, “children who cannot leave domestic relations,” and
“children without adequate protection,” independent of the sexual abuse she
experienced as a child. However, as the Government contends, Fuentes Maldonado
did not raise this claim to the BIA.1 We therefore deem this claim unexhausted and
decline to address it. See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir.
2023).
2. Substantial evidence supports the determination that Fuentes Maldonado
failed to establish a nexus between any past or feared future persecution and either
her alleged membership in the social group of “persons perceived to be supporters
1 Indeed, Fuentes Maldonado conceded during closing argument before the IJ
that she had “no current fear” of harm related to age-based social groups.

-- 2 of 4 --

3 23-602
of Los Zetas” or an imputed pro-cartel political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. §§
1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (listing protected grounds for asylum), 1231(b)(3)(A) (same, for
withholding of removal). There is substantial evidence for the finding that the
Mexican police raided Fuentes Maldonado’s home based on a mistake as to her
husband’s identity, rather than the belief that the family supported the Zetas cartel.
See Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 7 F.4th 888, 893 (9th Cir. 2021). And the
record does not compel us to conclude that the police would target Fuentes
Maldonado on this basis in the future. A generalized fear of violence and
corruption bears no nexus to a protected ground.2 See Rodriguez-Zuniga v.
Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2023). Because there is “no nexus at
all” between Fuentes Maldonado’s past or feared future harm and a protected
ground, the agency did not improperly conflate the asylum and withholding of
removal nexus standards. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th
Cir. 2017).
3. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. Fuentes
Maldonado did not establish that “it is more likely than not that . . . she would be
tortured” by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. 8
2 Because the absence of nexus is dispositive for asylum and withholding of
removal, the Agency was not required to consider the remaining elements of these
claims. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); I.N.S. v. Bagamasbad,
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 23-602
C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). The IJ reasonably concluded that Fuentes
Maldonado was not previously tortured, and that she failed to present evidence that
she faces an individualized risk of torture if removed. See Tzompantzi-Salazar v.
Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 706–07 (9th Cir. 2022) (upholding denial of CAT relief
where police-persecutors showed no ongoing interest in petitioner even with
prevalent crime and corruption in Mexico).
4. Because Fuentes Maldonado’s petition for review fails, any claims her
children hold as derivative asylum applicants also fail. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(3)(A); Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 521, 525 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --