Dionisia Sacor-Garcia v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DIONISIA SACOR-GARCIA, No. 17-73226 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-377-752 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 13, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Dionisia Sacor-Garcia petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Immigration * 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). and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. 1. To qualify for asylum and withholding of removal, Sacor-Garcia must have shown that her husband is a person whom “the government is unable or unwilling to control.” Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997)). By failing to challenge the BIA’s holding that she did not show that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to control her husband, Sacor-Garcia has forfeited any such argument. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013). Because this issue is dispositive of Sacor-Garcia’s asylum and withholding claims, we do not consider any arguments related to Sacor-Garcia’s proposed social group. 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sacor-Garcia does not qualify for CAT relief. Sacor-Garcia points to a State Department report discussing sexual harassment and discrimination against women in Guatemala. But generalized evidence of violence and crime in a country is insufficient to prove that a specific individual faces a likelihood of mistreatment rising to the level of torture. See Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (submitted country reports were insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief because they did not indicate any particularized risk of torture). 2 PETITION DENIED. 3