Angel Guzman Soberanis v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGEL GUZMAN SOBERANIS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70694
Agency No. A208-308-297
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 9, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON, TALLMAN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Angel Guzman Soberanis petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s order of removal. We deny
the petition for review.
1. The IJ held that Guzman’s testimony lacked credibility. The BIA held
* 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).
FILED
MAR 17 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
that any challenge to this adverse credibility determination was waived because
Guzman did not meaningfully address the IJ’s reasoning. See Honcharov v. Barr,
924 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir. 2019). In his Opening Brief to our court, Guzman has
not disputed the BIA’s waiver holding. Guzman has also not raised any specific
challenges to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, so any such challenges are
waived as well. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir.
1996); accord Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997–98 (9th Cir. 2007).
2. Guzman next posits that he established a nexus between his social
group, his family, and the harm he experienced or fears. To establish eligibility for
withholding of removal, an applicant must show the existence of a nexus between
past or feared future persecution and a statutorily protected ground. See Barajas-
Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
Nexus is a question of fact. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010).
Guzman claims that he has a reasonable fear of returning to Mexico because
he is a member of his family.1 But in addition to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding,
substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that any alleged or feared harm
has no nexus to the claimed social group of his family. Because “[a]n alien’s desire
1 Guzman argues that family is a cognizable social group, but neither the BIA nor
the IJ based denial of his application on this basis. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d
1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by
gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground,” id., Guzman failed to establish
nexus.
3. Finally, with respect to CAT relief, Guzman contends that “it is clear
that the Mexican government would ‘turn a blind eye’ and willingly fail to protect
him from his persecutors” based on current country conditions. But the BIA
determined that Guzman did not meaningfully challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief
and thus considered the issue waived. Guzman does not contest the BIA’s waiver
holding in his Opening Brief, so the CAT question is not before us on the merits.
Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259.
Therefore, the petition is DENIED. The pending motion for a stay is
DENIED as moot.

-- 3 of 3 --