Rosa Jaramillo Huicochea v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSA JARAMILLO HUICOCHEA, Nos. 18-71361 & 19-71442 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-097-786 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 16, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and EATON,*** Judge. Rosa Jaramillo Huicochea (“Jaramillo”), a citizen and native of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. Torture (“Torture Convention”). We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. While we review legal questions de novo, findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009), meaning that those findings must be upheld unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Jaramillo failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of an enumerated ground. On the record in this case, the BIA properly upheld the IJ’s finding that the harms visited on Jaramillo, her husband, and her husband’s nephews were attributable to general organized-crime activity and violent conditions, rather than to their membership in a particular family. Jaramillo stated that “members of an organized crime” group killed two of her husband’s nephews because they refused to join the group. She further testified at the hearing that she came to the United States “[b]ecause there’s a lot crime in my state of Guerrero,” and she acknowledged that the gangs “target everybody that they think they can get money from.” Likewise, her husband testified he was afraid to go back to Mexico “[b]ecause of the crime that exist[s] in Mexico” and a fear of the “bad people” in Mexico. We have held that the “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a 2 protected ground,” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010), and the BIA properly upheld the IJ’s finding that this was such a case. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Jaramillo’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. 2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of withholding or deferral of removal under the Torture Convention. To qualify for such relief, “an applicant ...

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