GERVACIA ANDRES VARGAS; AGUSTIN DANILLO AGUSTIN ANDRES; F.E.A.A., a minor v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERVACIA ANDRES VARGAS;
AGUSTIN DANILLO AGUSTIN
ANDRES; F.E.A.A., a minor,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71478
Agency Nos. A208-123-942
A208-123-943
A208-123-944
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: NGUYEN and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH,*** District Judge.
Gervacia Andres Vargas (“Andres Vargas”), a native and citizen of
* 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 Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-71478
Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order denying her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Andres Vargas’s two children are
also petitioners. The children’s claims are based on the same facts and
circumstances as Andres Vargas’s, and we refer to Vargas in resolving all
petitioners’ claims. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the
BIA’s determinations for substantial evidence. Diaz-Jimenez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d
955, 958 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for review.
1. The immigration court did not lack jurisdiction over removal
proceedings. Andres Vargas’s argument that the immigration court lacked
jurisdiction under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), because the Notices
to Appear in this case lacked hearing times, dates, and locations is foreclosed by
our precedent. United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022)
(en banc).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Andres
Vargas failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground because the record shows
that any harm Andres Vargas experienced arose over a personal land dispute
and/or a criminal motive. Andres Vargas admits that she left Guatemala and fears
returning due to a dispute over land ownership with her husband’s uncle. “An
alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft . . . bears

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-71478
no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010).
3. Substantial evidence supports the determination that Andres Vargas
failed to show internal relocation would be unreasonable. See 8 C.F.R §
1208.13(b)(2)(ii), (b)(3). Evidence shows that Andres Vargas’s father-in-law, who
was also threatened, successfully relocated within Guatemala without harm. The
record does not compel a conclusion that internal relocation would be
unreasonable.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --