Rolando Carrillo-Ramos v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROLANDO CARRILLO-RAMOS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71273
Agency No. A208-121-878
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 7, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER, WALLACH,*** and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rolando Carrillo-Ramos petitions for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from the decision of an
* 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 Evan J. Wallach, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny
the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Carrillo-Ramos’s
applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The agency permissibly
concluded that Carrillo-Ramos did not establish past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution on account of one of the protected grounds enumerated
in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Although Carrillo-Ramos received threats from at
least one gang, the threats did not rise to the level that constitutes persecution. See
Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Most threats do not rise
to the level of persecution. . . . We have been most likely to find persecution where
threats are repeated, specific and combined with confrontation or other
mistreatment.” (cleaned up)).
In addition, Carrillo-Ramos did not establish a nexus between the
persecution and his two proposed social groups, “Christians that oppose gang
activity” and “family.” The record does not contain evidence that the gang
targeted Carrillo-Ramos because of his religious beliefs, and instead indicates it
targeted him because he refused to join. There is no evidence in the record that he
experienced past harm on account of his family membership or that other family
members have experienced past harm on account of their family membership.

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection.
An applicant for CAT relief must show that torture upon removal is “more likely
than not.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). “[G]eneralized evidence of violence and
crime” that is not specific to an applicant “is insufficient to meet this standard.”
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
Although Carrillo-Ramos has presented evidence of past threats, he has not
presented evidence of past torture. His concerns about indiscriminate gang
violence and government corruption in Guatemala do not demonstrate that he faces
a particular risk of torture. The record therefore does not compel the conclusion
that it is more likely than not that Carrillo-Ramos will be tortured if removed to
Guatemala. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --