Enedelia Perez Madriz v. William Barr

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 30 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ENEDELIA PEREZ MADRIZ; MARIA No. 17-72576 SALUD PEDRIZCO PEREZ; ENEDELIA PEDRIZCO PEREZ; MARIA LUISA Agency Nos. A206-498-590 PEDRIZCO PEREZ; JUAN PEDRO A206-498-591 PEDRIZCO PEREZ; OLGA NATIVIDAD A206-498-592 PEDRIZCO PEREZ; ESBEYDE A206-498-593 YARELE PEDRIZCO PEREZ; ISABEL A206-498-594 GUADALUPE PEDRIZCO PEREZ, A206-498-595 A206-498-596 Petitioners, A206-498-597 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 28, 2020** Before: GRABER, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, 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). Lead petitioner, Enedelia Perez Madriz, and her seven children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir. 2018). “Substantial evidence review means that we may only reverse the agency’s determination where ‘the evidence compels a contrary conclusion from that adopted by the BIA.’” Id. at 908–09 (quoting Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir. 2010)). We deny the petition for review. 1. Perez Madriz’s jurisdictional argument is foreclosed by Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1159 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1106 (2020). 2. The BIA did not err in adopting and affirming the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13, 1208.16. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Perez Madriz did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her membership in a particular social group or any other protected basis. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A). 2 Substantial evidence supports the determination that Perez Madriz is not a member of the proposed social group “family members of murder victims who made reports to the police,” where she did not testify that she reported the murders of her brother or brother-in-law to the police. See Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084, 1091 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that whether an individual is a member of a proposed social group is a question of fact), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), vacated, 547 U.S. 183 (2006). Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Perez Madriz’s membership in the proposed social groups “family members of murder victims” and “family members of murdered police officers” lacks a nexus to her past or feared persecution in Mexico. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483–84 (1992) (recognizing that whether such a nexus exists is a factual question). Although cartel members threatened ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals