GUERRERO SORTO, ET AL. V. GARLAND, No. 22-908 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YOSELYN MILIZETH GUERRERO SORTO; JESUS EDGARDO GUTIERREZ GUERRERO; KEVIN JOSE GUTIERREZ GUERRERO; JENIFER MILIZETH GUTIERREZ GUERRERO; JOSSELYN MICHELLE GUTIERREZ GUERRERO, Petitioners, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-908 Agency Nos. A208-605-735 A208-605-737 A208-605-736 A208-605-739 A208-605-738 MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 18, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. * 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). Yoselyn Milizeth Guerrero Sorto and her four children (“Petitioners”), Honduran nationals and citizens, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners failed to establish a nexus between their alleged persecution and their family-based particular social group. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (listing protected grounds for asylum); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (same, for withholding of removal). Petitioners’ general fear of gang violence is insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting the “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners are not eligible for CAT protection because they failed to establish that “it is more likely than not [they] would be tortured” by or with the consent or acquiescence of 2 22-908 a Honduran public official. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Petitioners have not produced any evidence connecting the Honduran government to their prospective torture if returned to Honduras. While Petitioners’ country conditions reports show generalized violence throughout Honduras and ineffective and occasionally corrupt government officials, “[g]eneralized evidence of violence in a country is itself insufficient to establish that anyone in the government would acquiesce to a petitioner’s torture.” B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 845 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)). PETITION DENIED. 3 22-908
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.
