Humberta Angel Betancourt; Kareli Ibarra Angel; Melina Ibarra Angel v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUMBERTA ANGEL
BETANCOURT; KARELI IBARRA
ANGEL; MELINA IBARRA ANGEL,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-359
Agency Nos.
A208-601-948
A208-601-949
A208-601-950
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2024**
Portland, Oregon
Before: OWENS and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and RAYES, District
Judge.***
* 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 Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 9 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 23-359
Humberta Angel Betancourt, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Betancourt’s two children are derivative beneficiaries of her asylum application.
“We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for
substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.
2019). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. As the parties are familiar with the
facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition for review.
1. An asylum “applicant must demonstrate a nexus between her past or
feared harm and a protected ground.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143
(9th Cir. 2021). “Specifically, the protected characteristic must be ‘a central
reason’ for the past or feared harm.” Id. (citation omitted).
Betancourt sought asylum on account of her membership in five proposed
particular social groups: (1) unemployed Mexican women; (2) Mexican women
who were targeted for kidnapping; (3) Mexican migrant women; (4) Mexican
women; and (5) Mexican women of working age.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Betancourt failed
to establish a nexus between any past or feared harm and her proposed particular

-- 2 of 4 --

3 23-359
social groups. Betancourt primarily relies on her attempted kidnapping by
criminals pretending to offer jobs at a Walmart store near her home in Mexico.
However, Betancourt stated that she did not know why she was targeted and that
the criminals attempted to kidnap both men and women. See Zetino v. Holder, 622
F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (A non-citizen’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.”).
Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s nexus determination, we do
not reach any other ground for Betancourt’s asylum claim.
2. While the nexus standard for withholding of removal is less demanding
than for asylum, there is no distinction when there is “no nexus at all.” Barajas-
Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). Because substantial evidence
supports that there was no nexus at all, we also uphold the BIA’s denial of
Betancourt’s withholding of removal claim.
3. Regarding her CAT claim, substantial evidence supports that Betancourt
failed to show that she will more likely than not be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of government officials if removed to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1); Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th
Cir. 2016) (“[A] general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate
and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 23-359
4. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --