NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICKY GISELA FLORES LEMUS DE No. 20-72874 ZACARIAS; ESTUARDO EFRAIN Agency Nos. ZACARIAS FLORES, A208-919-958 & A208-919-959 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v.

PAMELA J. BONDI, United States Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 8, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, MILLER, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Vicky Gisela Flores Lemus de Zacarias (Lemus de Zacarias) and Estuardo

Efrain Zacarias Flores, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of a

* 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). decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of a

decision from an Immigration Judge denying their applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”).1 We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Lemus de

Zacarias did not establish that her connection to her late husband, who was tragically

killed in Guatemala, was one central reason or a reason for any past persecution or

feared future persecution.

In the eight months she lived in Guatemala after the murder of her husband,

Lemus de Zacarias did not see the two men she described as having killed her

husband. Although she testified that a neighbor told her two men were watching her

house, she could not link this event to the death of her husband. Lemus de Zacarias

surmised that her husband was killed by gang members seeking payment. But,

“exclusive financial motivation cannot establish a nexus” to a protected ground for

asylum or withholding of removal. Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1025 (9th Cir. 2023). And, as the BIA noted, Lemus de Zacarias’s “fear of future

harm is due to the high level of general crime in Guatemala,” which is “not a

1 Estuardo Efrain Zacarias Flores is Lemus de Zacarias’s child who was a minor at the time of his application. Although he filed a separate application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, his claims are identical to his mother’s, and we do not analyze them separately.

2 20-72874 sufficient basis for asylum or withholding of removal.” Id. at 1014. Thus,

substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See

id. at 1016.2

2. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. Lemus de

Zacarias did not sufficiently “demonstrate that it is more likely than not that [she]

would be tortured if removed.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th

Cir. 2019). “Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does

not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). Although she

suffered the death of her husband, Lemus de Zacarias was neither harmed nor

threatened in the eight months she lived in Guatemala following the murder. And

no evidence was presented establishing the likelihood of future torture with the

consent or acquiescence of a public official. See Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029. The fact that local authorities failed to apprehend the murderers does not

establish government acquiescence. See Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1184 (9th Cir. 2020).

2 Because the BIA addressed only whether Lemus de Zacarias demonstrated a nexus for past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, we do not address any other issues for the asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e are bound to consider only the grounds relied upon by the agency. . . .”) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

3 20-72874 PETITION DENIED.3

3 The stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues. The motion for stay of removal (Dkt. # 1) is otherwise denied.

4 20-72874