Heidi Raguex-Chang v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2022 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS HEIDI RAGUEX-CHANG; MIGUEL No. 15-73220 ZAPETA-RAGUEX, Agency Nos. A205-591-388 Petitioners, A202-094-934 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 18, 2022 San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER, GOULD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Heidi Raguex-Chang (“Raguex”), a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial, by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (the “Torture Convention”).1 We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 Raguex’s minor son, who is a co-petitioner, is a rider on Raguex’s application for asylum and has not presented any independent application for relief. Nationality Act (“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review legal questions de novo and the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the harms that Raguex experienced or fears have not been shown to be “on account of” one of the protected grounds set forth in the INA. Raguex testified that her father was murdered for money, not because of his ethnicity or other protected grounds. The threatening letter Raguex received in 2012 mentioned her father’s killing but did not suggest that she was targeted based on a protected ground. During the bus robberies, the gang members robbed everyone—even the non-indigenous passengers. As the BIA concluded, Raguex “conceded at the hearing that money was the motivation for her father’s killing, for the extortion, and for the bus robberies.” On this record, we cannot say that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude” that there was a nexus between Raguex’s claimed protected grounds and the harms she suffered or fears. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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.”). Raguex notes that the agency’s decision in her case preceded our opinion in 2 Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017), which clarified that the showing of nexus required for a withholding of removal claim is less demanding than for an asylum claim. Id. at 358–59. Raguex further correctly notes that, in reciting the applicable standards governing nexus, the BIA’s decision below erroneously stated that withholding claims were subject to the same nexus standard as asylum claims. We have held, however, that remand is nonetheless not required if the agency’s decision makes clear that it found “no nexus …

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