CARBAJAL GUEVARA, ET AL. V. GARLAND, No. 23-608 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 19 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAUL GUSTAVO CARBAJAL GUEVARA; et al., Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-608 Agency Nos. A208-568-307 A209-001-626 A209-001-627 MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 12, 2023** Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Saul Gustavo Carbajal Guevara, Rosalba Yamileth Mendoza de Carbajal, and their minor child, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from * 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). an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, and denying Carbajal Guevara and Mendoza de Carbajal’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the determination that Carbajal Guevara failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Carbajal Guevara’s asylum claim fails. Because Carbajal Guevara failed to establish any nexus at all, he also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See BarajasRomero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017). Because Mendoza de Carbajal does not challenge the dispositive adverse credibility determination, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Mendoza de Carbajal’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348, F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Mendoza de Carbajal and Carbajal Guevera failed to establish 2 23-608 eligibility for asylum, their derivative child’s asylum claim also fails. Because Mendoza de Carbajal and Carbajal Guevera do not challenge the denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 23-608
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
