Araceli Vazquez Garcia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARACELI VAZQUEZ GARCIA; NOEMI
MONTSERRAT REBOLLEDO
VAZQUEZ; YERANIA JULISSA
REBOLLEDO VAZQUEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72470
Agency Nos. A208-306-536
A208-306-537
A208-306-585
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 4, 2021
Portland, Oregon
Before: W. FLETCHER, IKUTA, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Araceli Vazquez Garcia and her daughters Yerania Julissa Rebolledo Vazquez
and Noemi Montserrat Rebolledo Vazquez (collectively, “petitioners”), citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
OCT 14 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
dismissing their appeals of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying their claims for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We review for substantial evidence and may grant relief only if the
record compels a contrary conclusion. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007
(9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. To obtain asylum, petitioners must establish that a protected ground
was or will be “one central reason” for their past or feared future persecution. 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741–42 (9th Cir.
2009). To obtain withholding of removal, petitioners must establish that a protected
ground is “a reason” for their claimed persecution. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846
F.3d 351, 359–60 (9th Cir. 2017).
In this case, and assuming without deciding that petitioners’ proposed social
groups are cognizable, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
petitioners did not demonstrate past or well-founded fear of future persecution
because of or on account of a protected ground. While the murder of Alfonso
Alejandro Rebolledo Vazquez was tragic, Vazquez Garcia conceded she did not
know with certainty who killed Alfonso or why he was killed. In addition, Vazquez
Garcia did not know who was calling her with vague threats, and the callers never
made any demands or provided further reason for the calls. At least some other
family members of Alfonso living in Mexico have not received threats.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
The record thus permitted the BIA to conclude that petitioners had at most
demonstrated past or future harm based on generalized violence, which is
insufficient to demonstrate past or likely future persecution on account of their
membership in proposed social groups. See, e.g., Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d
1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Asylum is not available to victims of indiscriminate
violence, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”); Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that attacks that are
motivated by “theft or random violence” bear no nexus to a protected ground);
Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Assuming that
Petitioner’s family is ‘a particular social group’ within the meaning of the statute, he
has not established that he was persecuted ‘on account of’ his family membership.”).
Therefore, the BIA’s denial of both asylum and withholding of removal was
supported by substantial evidence.
2. To obtain CAT relief, petitioners must show that government officials
or private actors with government acquiescence would more likely than not torture
them if they are returned to Mexico. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1033 (9th Cir. 2014); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The record does not compel the
conclusion that petitioners made this showing. Petitioners have not demonstrated
past torture in Mexico, nor does the record require the conclusion that, if they return,
petitioners will likely be tortured in Mexico with the participation or acquiescence

-- 3 of 4 --

4
of the Mexican government. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th
Cir. 2016) (“[G]eneral ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and
prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --