NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARLA RUANO CORADO DE GUDIEL; No. 24-2159 et al., Agency Nos. A220-988-892 Petitioners, A220-988-893 A220-988-894 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 3, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Karla Ruano Corado de Gudiel (“Ruano Corado”) and her two

minor children, all natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of a

decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial by an

immigration judge (“IJ”) of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

* 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). and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Exercising

jurisdiction under

, we review for substantial evidence factual

findings underlying the agency’s eligibility determinations, Plancarte Sauceda v.

Garland,

, 831 (9th Cir. 2022).1 For the reasons set forth below, we

deny the petition for review.2

1. Petitioners fear persecution on account of their relationship with Ruano

Corado’s late husband, Robin Omar Gudiel Olmos (“Robin”), and have accordingly

proposed two particular social groups (“PSG”): (1) the Gudiel Ruano family, and (2)

the immediate family of Robin. Robin was a police officer who investigated

narcotics crimes for approximately ten years in Guatemala. He was killed or

committed suicide in November 2016. Prior to his death, Robin told Ruano Corado

that some drug traffickers had threatened to kill him and his family. Neither Robin’s

family nor Ruano Corado reported Robin’s death to the police.

Approximately nine months after Robin’s death, starting in August 2017,

Ruano Corado noticed “a certain black car” stopping “once every two months” by

her house where she lived with her two children, appearing to be surveilling them.

As the windows of the car “were tinted,” Ruano Corado does not know who was

1 We refer to the IJ and the BIA collectively as “the agency.” “Our review is limited to the BIA’s decision except where the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Plancarte Sauceda, 23 F.4th at 831. 2 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recount them only as relevant to our decision.

2 24-2159 inside, but she believes that the car was manned by drug traffickers who had

threatened Robin because her “house was not around other houses” and because

those drug traffickers had told Robin that “they knew where [Petitioners] lived.”

Ruano Corado did not report these incidents to the police. The suspected

surveillance lasted for several years and continued after Ruano Corado left for the

United States in August 2021. Petitioners fear that drug traffickers would kill them

upon their return to Guatemala.

The agency concluded that the record lacked any concrete evidence that could

support a nexus between the persecution Petitioners feared and the PSGs they

proposed. We agree. It was simply Ruano Corado’s speculation that the suspicious

car was manned by drug traffickers surveilling her family for reasons relating to

Robin. Ruano Corado does not know who, in fact, was in the car. Whoever was in

the car never did anything to Petitioners or their family, and none of them ever

received any threats since Robin passed away almost a decade ago. Therefore,

substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners have failed to

establish the nexus necessary for their eligibility for asylum and withholding of

removal.

2. To establish eligibility for CAT protection, Petitioners must show they

are more likely than not to be tortured upon removal to Guatemala. Plancarte

Sauceda, 23 F.4th at 834 (citing

(c)(2)). Again, nothing in the

3 24-2159 record besides Ruano Corado’s speculation suggests that, upon return to Guatemala,

Petitioners are likely to suffer any harm beyond what they experienced in the past,

which did not constitute torture within the meaning of CAT. Therefore, substantial

evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners have failed to establish

their eligibility for CAT protection.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.3

3 Petitioners’ motion to stay removal (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED as moot.

4 24-2159