United States v. 2020-12-11 | 18-73238 | SONIA RECANOJ-DE LEON V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SONIA MARIA RECANOJ-DE LEON,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-73238

Agency No. A205-405-121

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 8, 2020
**

San Francisco, California

Before: MURGUIA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,
***
District
Judge.

*
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 William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge
for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
FILED

DEC 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
Sonia Recanoj de Leon (Petitioner), a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing
her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying her application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
To be entitled to withholding of removal, a petitioner must demonstrate her
“life or freedom” would be threatened in her home country because of, inter alia,
“membership in a particular social group.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The
petitioner can meet this burden by (1) establishing a fear of future persecution
based on past persecution or (2) independently establishing “it is more likely than
not that [she] would be persecuted” on the basis of particular social group
membership. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b).
In this case, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Petitioner failed to establish a nexus between past persecution or likely future
persecution and her membership in a particular social group. See Ayala v. Holder,
640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that a petitioner “must establish that
any persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”).
Petitioner testified that gang members extorted and beat her father for money, but

3
failed to establish that she herself was in danger on account of membership in her
father’s family. See, e.g., Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(an applicant’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”).
Furthermore, the IJ determined that there was insufficient evidence of harm to
Petitioner’s brother on the basis of his family membership. See Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743-44 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding lack of a well-founded
fear of future persecution on account of family membership where another family
member had remained unharmed in petitioner’s native country), abrogated on
other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en
banc).
With respect to Petitioner’s status as a single woman or mother in
Guatemala, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that she failed to establish
a nexus between the alleged harm and her membership in such a group.
Petitioner’s testimony did not establish that her persecution has been, or is likely to
be, on account of her status as a single woman or mother. And while country
conditions evidence demonstrated the danger of gangs, threats by gang members in
Petitioner’s village were shown to be generalized and not specific to the claimed
social groups. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016.

4
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief due
to an insufficient showing of past torture. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207,
1224 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that “torture is more severe than persecution”).
Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Petitioner could escape harm
from local gangs by relocating to join her brother and daughter in Guatemala City.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3) (providing non-exclusive list of considerations for
granting CAT relief, including the possibility of relocation to an area where
petitioner is not likely to be tortured). Evidence of country-wide gang violence did
not undermine this finding. See, e.g., Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,
1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in
Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to [show a likelihood of
torture].”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.