Background
Petitioners, natives of Guatemala, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture after being attacked by masked men who demanded payment. The Immigration Judge denied their applications, finding the attackers were motivated by monetary gain. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the denial for substantial evidence, upholding the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. The Immigration Judge found that the petitioners failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground because the attackers were motivated by extortion and financial gain. The court held that the petitioners’ testimony about the attackers’ financial motivation and the attackers’ statements did not compel a conclusion that the petitioners were targeted based on their indigenous status. Because the lack of nexus was dispositive, the court did not address other issues raised regarding the claims. The Convention Against Torture claim was deemed unexhausted and waived.
To be eligible for asylum, Petitioners must 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)
What it means going forward
The petition for review is denied, leaving the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying asylum and withholding of removal in place. The petitioners’ motion to stay removal is also denied.