Citlaly Guzman Dominguez; Yoshua Guzman Dominguez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CITLALY GUZMAN DOMINGUEZ;
YOSHUA GUZMAN DOMINGUEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70772
Agency Nos. A201-026-098
A206-677-958
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 17, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: CHRISTEN and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,*** District Judge.
Citlaly Guzman Dominguez and her son Yoshua (collectively, “petitioners”),
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
* 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 Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
decision dismissing their appeal 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 be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to demonstrate a
likelihood of ‘persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’”
Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A)). “To be eligible for withholding of removal, the petitioner must
discharge this burden by a clear probability.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Petitioners concede they have not suffered past persecution. And assuming
without deciding that their proposed social group (persons who participated in a
town “self-defense” group) is cognizable, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that petitioners did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
persecution because of a protected ground. Petitioners described only a limited role
in their town’s self-defense group, and the record does not establish that any of the
incidents they described occurred because the victims had participated in or
supported the self-defense group.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
The record thus permitted the BIA to conclude that petitioners had at most
demonstrated a fear of future harm based on generalized violence, which is
insufficient. 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). We also reject as unsupported
petitioners’ assertions that the BIA failed to consider their evidence. Therefore,
substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of
removal.1
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
1 Petitioners did not raise before the BIA that they faced future persecution based on
a pattern or practice of persecution of self-defense groups. We therefore do not
consider this unexhausted argument. See Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 492
(9th Cir. 2008).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
acquiescence of the Mexican government.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --