Alex Francisco Perez-Carranza v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEX FRANCISCO PEREZ-CARRANZA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73835
Agency No. A200-885-250
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 7, 2022**
Seattle, Washington
Before: NGUYEN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Alex Francisco Perez-Carranza, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s denial of his asylum application. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
* 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
MAR 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
An asylum applicant must establish a nexus between the persecution suffered
or feared and a protected ground, such as “nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Two major events
form the basis of Perez-Carranza’s claim of persecution. First, before he left
Honduras, he was attacked by members of the 18th Street Gang as revenge for his
relationship with one of their ex-girlfriends. Second, almost a decade after Perez-
Carranza came to the United States, his brother-in-law cooperated with the
Honduran police to thwart an extortion attempt by the same gang. Perez-Carranza
argues that he suffered or will suffer gang-related persecution on account of his
membership in two groups: “Family members of [his sister] who have resided with
her in San Miguel” or “household family members of those who have testified
against or provided information useful in prosecution of Honduran gang members.”
The Board disagreed, reasoning that “personal dispute[s]” and “[g]eneral criminal
activity of the sort [Perez-Carranza] and his family members suffered and fears does
not provide a sufficient nexus to an enumerated ground.”
We review the Board’s determination for substantial evidence. Garcia v.
Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021). Under that standard, we must accept
the Board’s factual findings “unless the evidence in the record compels a contrary
conclusion.” Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007); see 8 U.S.C.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
§ 1252(b)(4)(B). Because the Board assumed without deciding that the proposed
social groups are cognizable, we do the same.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Perez-Carranza has
not established a nexus between familial membership and gang violence or extortion.
Perez-Carranza acknowledged that the gang attacked him because of “a personal
dispute.” However, personal disputes unconnected to a protected ground cannot
form the basis for asylum. Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051–52 (9th Cir.
2001); Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
Likewise, there may be a risk that gangs will retaliate against those who cooperate
with police. But Perez-Carranza has twelve siblings, nine of whom still live in
Honduras and most of whom have never been threatened by the 18th Street Gang.
Indeed, even among those members of his family who have lived with his sister in
San Miguel, most have not been threatened. And no one in the family has been
targeted since 2012. Accordingly, the record does not compel the conclusion that
Perez-Carranza has a reasonable fear of future persecution on account of his
membership in either proposed social group.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --