Lorenza Lucas Manuel; Nancy Guadalupe Mendoza Lucas; Kimberly Yaneth Mendoza Lucas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LORENZA LUCAS MANUEL; NANCY
GUADALUPE MENDOZA
LUCAS; KIMBERLY YANETH
MENDOZA LUCAS,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1433
Agency Nos.
A208-306-835
A208-306-837
A208-306-836
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 8, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, MELLOY ***, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
* 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 Michael J. Melloy, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 27 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Lorenza Lucas Manuel and two derivative petitioners, all natives and
citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(BIA) dismissal of their appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ),
which denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
“[O]ur review of BIA decisions is highly deferential.” Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2009). We will reverse the BIA’s denial of
asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief only where the record evidence
compels a different result. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014).
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lucas Manuel
does not qualify for asylum. To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must establish
that they are a “refugee” as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A); Parussimova, 555 F.3d at 738. A person may qualify as
a “refugee” if they previously faced “persecution” or have “a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
The BIA concluded that Lucas Manuel failed to present evidence that she
had previously faced persecution in Guatemala. The BIA also found that Lucas

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Manuel did not demonstrate she would face future persecution in Guatemala on
account of her membership in a particular social group. The BIA rejected Lucas
Manuel’s first proposed social group, “Guatemalans returning with perceived
wealth,” determining it was too broad and therefore not cognizable for asylum
purposes. Lucas Manuel’s second proposed social group was based on her
relationship with her father. Lucas Manuel alleged that her father had been killed
but presented no testimony that she was threatened with future harm on account of
her relationship with him. Finally, Lucas Manuel claimed she would face future
persecution on account of her indigenous race but again failed to support her claim
with sufficient evidence. We conclude that the BIA’s denial of asylum was
supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, we deny Lucas Manuel’s petition
for review of her asylum claim.
2. The BIA also determined that Lucas Manuel did not qualify for
withholding of removal on the same grounds as her asylum claim. “For both
asylum and withholding claims, a petitioner must prove a causal nexus between
one of her statutorily protected characteristics and either her past harm or her
objectively tenable fear of future harm.” Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th
1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). Because we affirm the BIA’s finding that Lucas
Manuel did not show she had faced or would face persecution in connection with
any protected group, we conclude the BIA correctly denied withholding of

-- 3 of 4 --

4
removal.
3. We also find that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Lucas
Manuel’s CAT claim. To be eligible for CAT relief, a person “must establish that
‘it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the
proposed country of removal.’” Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033 (citing 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.16(c)(2)). The BIA determined that Lucas Manuel’s torture claim rested on
mere assumptions and a generalized fear of potential torture—she had neither
suffered past torture nor presented evidence that she was a target for future torture.
Thus, the BIA found that Lucas Manuel failed to show it was more likely than not
she would face torture upon return to Guatemala. Id. We find substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s conclusion.
DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --