Opinion
16-71224
09-26-2022
MARIA PACHECO BRAN, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted September 22, 2022 [**] Pasadena, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-124-249
Before: IKUTA and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL, [***] District Judge.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Maria Pacheco Bran seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
In her brief on appeal, Pacheco Bran failed to make any argument in support of her claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore, this issue is deemed waived. See Cui v. Garland, 13 F.4th 991, 999 n.6 (9th Cir. 2021).
The BIA did not err in denying Pacheco Bran's claims for asylum and withholding of removal because she failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (denying petition for review of the BIA's denial of claims for both asylum and withholding of removal where the BIA found no nexus between feared persecution and an alleged protected ground). The BIA's determination that Pacheco-Bran had been the victim of generalized criminal activity but not had not been targeted on account of a protected ground, see Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010), was supported by substantial evidence. Nor did the BIA err in concluding that Pacheco Bran failed to show a nexus between feared future persecution and a protected ground. Pacheco Bran did not argue that she would be targeted on account of her membership in a particular social group (her family) before the IJ, so she waived this argument, Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). But even if Pacheco-Bran had not waived this argument, the BIA did not err in concluding that evidence that other members of her family had also been victims of generalized criminal activity did not carry her burden of showing that she would be targeted for persecution due to her membership in her family.
Because Pacheco-Bran failed to show that the alleged persecutors targeted her on account of any protected ground, it is immaterial that the BIA referenced the asylum standard for a mixed motives case (that an alien must show that a protected ground is "one central reason" for the persecution) but failed to cite the different standard for a withholding of removal claim (that a protected ground is "a reason" for the persecution). See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017); Singh, 935 F.3d at 827. "[N]either the result nor the BIA's basic reasoning would change" under the correct standard, and therefore any error was harmless. Singh, 935 F.3d at 827.
PETITION DENIED.
[*] 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).
[***] The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.