Cristina Nicolas-Pedro; Henry Nicolas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISTINA NICOLAS-PEDRO; HENRY
NICOLAS,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70419
Agency Nos. A206-888-951
A206-888-950
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 11, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: EBEL,*** BRESS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Cristina Nicolas-Pedro and her minor child Henry seek review of
a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their applications for asylum,
* 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 David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
AUG 13 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We deny the petition.
Regarding asylum and withholding of removal, the Board applied the
correct legal standards, and substantial evidence supports the Board’s
determination that Nicolas-Pedro’s alleged persecutors were motivated by
pecuniary interests, rather than a protected status. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended; Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940,
944 (9th Cir. 2007). In her statement supporting her claims and during her hearing
before the Immigration Judge, Nicolas-Pedro stated that the individuals she fears
targeted her because they were seeking to steal her money or property. Substantial
evidence thus supports the Board’s determination that Nicolas-Pedro has not
shown persecution because of a protected ground.
Regarding CAT protection, the Board applied the correct legal standards,
and substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Nicolas-Pedro failed
to establish a clear probability of torture if removed to Guatemala. See Delgado-
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“Petitioners’
generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to
Petitioners and is insufficient to . . . establish prima facie eligibility for protection
under the CAT.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We lack jurisdiction to consider Nicolas-Pedro’s remaining claims regarding
claim-processing errors and due-process protections for rare-language speakers,
because those claims are unexhausted because of Nicolas-Pedro’s failure to present
them to the Board. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2013)
(per curiam).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --