Gaspar Pablo Gaspar-Antonio v. Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Gaspar Pablo Gaspar-Antonio, et al.
Petitioners,
v.
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 22-11
Agency Nos.
A208-190-787
A208-190-928
A208-190-788
A208-190-925
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 12, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Gaspar Pablo Gaspar-Antonio, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his
appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We review the BIA’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual
* 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
APR 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Case: 22-11, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 36.1, Page 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-11
findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d
1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Gaspar-
Antonio failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
membership in the particular social group of his family, which requires a
showing that his fear of future persecution is both “subjectively genuine and
objectively reasonable.” See id. at 1062 (citation omitted). Gaspar-Antonio
cannot satisfy the objective element. His evidence that he fears persecution in
Guatemala is based only on hearing from his brother, who heard from an
unnamed acquaintance, that their sister’s husband would “get the gangs” to
harm Gaspar-Antonio if he returned to Guatemala. Without specific evidence
that he may be harmed in Guatemala, Gaspar-Antonio’s evidence is “too
speculative to be credited as a basis for fear of future persecution.” See Silva v.
Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 719 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Nagoulko v. I.N.S., 333
F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)). Because Gaspar-Antonio cannot show an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution to establish asylum, the BIA
did not err by concluding that he cannot meet the stricter “more likely than not”
standard required to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Sakar
v. Garland, 39 F.4th 611, 622 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Silva, 993 F.3d at 719).
Gaspar-Antonio’s claim for derivative asylum based on his fear that his
daughters will be persecuted by Gaspar-Antonio’s sister’s husband fails. Even
Case: 22-11, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 36.1, Page 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-11
if parents were eligible for asylum derivatively through their noncitizen
children, Gaspar-Antonio has not established an objectively reasonable fear that
his daughters will be persecuted in Guatemala because he did not submit any
specific evidence to support that claim. Cf. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037,
1042–43 (9th Cir. 2005) (remanding to the BIA to consider whether noncitizen
parents with an “objectively reasonable fear” that their U.S. citizen child would
be persecuted in their native country are derivatively eligible for asylum).
Gaspar-Antonio’s opening brief contains only a passing reference to his
CAT claim. Because Gaspar-Antonio’s CAT claim is unsupported by
argument, it is “deemed abandoned.” Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993,
997 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Case: 22-11, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 36.1, Page 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --