Maria Lilia Murga-Lopez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA LILIA MURGA-LOPEZ; OSCAR
URIEL ROMERO-MURGA; MARTIN
ROMERO-REYES; JESUS EDUARDO
ROMERO-MURGA,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1427
Agency Nos.
A209-168-636
A209-168-637
A209-168-675
A209-168-676
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2023**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: GOULD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Maria Lilia Murga-Lopez, Martin Romero-Reyes, Jesus Eduardo Romero-
Murga, and Oscar Uriel Romero-Murga (“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of
Mexico, seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order
* 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
SEP 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1427
dismissing their appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that
denied their applications for asylum and withholding of removal.1 We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Guo v.
Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018), we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Petitioners’ asylum claim.
To qualify for asylum, an applicant “must establish that race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at
least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). In other words, an applicant must show a nexus between the
harm experienced or feared and one of the listed protected grounds. Garcia v.
Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021).
Petitioners allege that they will face persecution because of their “family
membership.” Although family can be a social group under § 1158(b)(1), a
petitioner must show that the “persecution was or will be on account of his
membership in such group.” Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.
2011). The agency’s conclusion that Petitioners did not establish the required
nexus was supported by substantial evidence. Maria Murga-Lopez testified that
Petitioners were targeted because of their business ownership and that the
extortion stopped when Petitioners closed the business. This supports the BIA
1 Petitioners also applied for relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Petitioners do not contest the BIA’s conclusion that this was waived.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1427
and IJ’s findings that the motivation for targeting Petitioners was economic—not
because of their membership in a particular social group.
Petitioners suggest the BIA’s decision contradicts Ayala v. Sessions, 855
F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2017). We disagree. In Ayala, we ruled that extortion could
constitute persecution, but that a showing of nexus was still required to satisfy
the requirements for withholding of removal. 855 F.3d at 1021. Here, the record
supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners were targeted for economic
reasons, not because of their familial ties.
2. Because Petitioners have not met their burden of proof for asylum,
substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal.
Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2020) (“An applicant who fails to
satisfy the lower standard for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more
demanding standard for withholding of removal.”).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --