Sebastian Miguel v. Bondi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CATARINA SEBASTIAN No. 23-1332 MIGUEL; SINDI ENCARNACION Agency Nos. MATEO SEBASTIAN; YENIFER ISABEL A206-843-626 MATEO SEBASTIAN, A206-843-627 A206-843-628 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 19, 2025** Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Catarina Sebastian Miguel and her daughters, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals * 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). (BIA) dismissing their appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. “In cases in which, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the decision of the IJ but also adds its own analysis, the scope of our review extends to the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA.” Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up). “We review the agency’s legal determinations de novo, and factual findings for substantial evidence.” Id. Sebastian Miguel’s asylum and withholding claims fail because she has not shown that the record compels the conclusion that a protected ground would be “at least one central reason” or even “a reason” for the harm she fears in Guatemala. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021). Sebastian Miguel testified that she did not know what motivated the murders of her sister-in-law and others in her village, and the record otherwise lacks any compelling evidence of the murderers’ motives. Thus, substantial evidence supports the agency’s dispositive determination that Sebastian Miguel did not establish a nexus to a protected ground. See id. at 1144; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A)–(B), 1231(b)(3)(A). PETITION DENIED. 2 23-1332