Simona Carrillo- Pablo; Franky Mikael Jacinto- Carrillo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIMONA CARRILLO-
PABLO; FRANKY MIKAEL JACINTO-
CARRILLO,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1097
Agency Nos.
A208-196-561
A208-196-562
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Homeland Security
Submitted February 8, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, BUMATAY, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
Simona Carrillo-Pablo and Franky Mikael Jacinto-Carrillo, natives and
citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
FILED
FEB 13 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that they did not have a reasonable fear
of persecution or torture in Guatemala and are not entitled to relief from their
reinstated order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence,
Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2018), and we deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that petitioners failed to
show that Guatemalan gang members harmed Carrillo-Pablo on account of a
protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.31(c), 1208.31(c); Zetino v. Holder, 622
F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (a noncitizen’s “desire to be free from harassment
by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no
nexus to a protected ground”). Although petitioners now claim that Carrillo-Pablo
was targeted because she was an unmarried, indigenous mother, petitioners
acknowledge that they did not propose this particular social group below, see 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (a petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies), and do
not identify support in the record for their contention.
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that petitioners
failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if petitioners were returned to Guatemala. See 8
2

-- 2 of 3 --

C.F.R. §§ 208.18(a)(1), 208.31(c), 1208.31(c); Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828
F.3d 829, 836-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (denying a petition for review of an application
for relief under the Convention Against Torture where a petitioner failed to
demonstrate government acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable
possibility of future torture). Petitioners’ contention to the contrary is conclusory
and unsupported by the record.
In light of intervening authority, the government has appropriately
withdrawn its contention that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this petition
because it was untimely. See Alonso-Juarez v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1039, 1046 (9th
Cir. 2023). The petition was timely because it was filed within 30 days of the
conclusion of petitioners’ reasonable fear proceedings. Id. at 1047, 1051.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --