`
`NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`ERICELDA BEATRICE GUINAC-
`VELASQUEZ,
`
` Petitioner,
`
` v.
`
`PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
`
` Respondent.
` No. 23-4259
`Agency No.
`A205-272-695
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`On Petition for Review of an Order of the
`Board of Immigration Appeals
`
`Submitted June 2, 2025**
`Seattle, Washington
`
`Before: RAWLINSON, BRESS, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
`
` Ericelda Beatrice Guinac-Velasquez (Guinac-Velasquez), a native and
`citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the denial of her applications for
`asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture
`
`* 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).
`
`FILED
`
`JUN 13 2025
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2 23-4259
`(CAT), and cancellation of removal. We deny the petition.
`1. Substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
`denial of asylum and withholding of removal on the basis that Guinac-Velasquez
`failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution or a clear
`probability of future persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81
`(9th Cir. 2007); Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010).1
`For both asylum and withholding of removal, an applicant may demonstrate
`an “objective risk of future persecution” by establishing (1) “a reasonable
`possibility that [she] will be singled out individually for persecution” as a member
`of a disfavored group2 or (2) “that there is a systematic pattern or practice of
`persecution against the group to which [she] belongs in [her] home country.”
`Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal
`quotation marks omitted).
`Substantial evidence supports the finding of no pattern or practice of
`
`1 Because our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, and the BIA did not make a
`nexus determination, we do not address Guinac-Velasquez’s arguments regarding
`the different nexus standards for asylum and withholding of removal. See Singh v.
`Garland, 57 F.4th 643, 651 (9th Cir. 2023).
`
`2 Guinac-Velasquez failed to exhaust her disfavored group claim because she did
`not raise the issue before the BIA. See Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland, 47 F.4th 971,
`981 (9th Cir. 2022). Regardless, the BIA (in adopting the IJ’s findings) appears to
`have addressed any such claim, which lacks merit.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3 23-4259
`persecution against lesbians because the violence reported against women who
`identify as lesbians is not pervasive, and the Guatemalan government has made
`progress in protecting the rights of lesbian women in Guatemala. Although lesbian
`women are more likely to experience discrimination, that is not the same as
`persecution. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061.
`2. The BIA used the proper legal standard in affirming the Immigration
`Judge’s (IJ) denial of CAT relief. The BIA reviewed for clear error the IJ’s factual
`findings as to whether Guinac-Velasquez would be tortured in Guatemala, then
`reviewed de novo whether those facts met the legal requirements for CAT relief.
`See Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012). Applying that
`standard, the BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s factual finding that country
`conditions evidence showed generalized violence in Guatemala rather than a
`particularized risk of torture. See Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir.
`2023). Guinac-Velasquez “does not point to any fact found by the IJ that was
`ignored by the BIA, or any fact found by the BIA that was not found by the IJ.”
`Id. at 979 (citation omitted).
`3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Guinac-
`Velasquez’s United States citizen son would not suffer “exceptional and extremely
`unusual hardship” if she were removed to Guatemala. Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4 23-4259
`-- F.4th ----, No. 21-927, 2025 WL 1440220, at *9 (9th Cir. May 20, 2025). To
`demonstrate the required hardship, a petitioner must show hardship “that is
`substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected
`from the deportation of an alien with close family members [in the United States].”
`Id. at *8 (citation omitted). Even though Guinac-Velasquez’s son has a learning
`disability, he spends 80 to 100 percent of his time in regular classes and does well
`in school. The BIA also determined that her son understands Spanish and would
`not be deprived of the opportunity to obtain an education. See id. at *9.
`PETITION DENIED.3
`
`3 The temporary stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues. The
`motion to stay removal (Dkt # 39) and the supplemental motion to stay removal
`(Dkt. # 43) are otherwise denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`