Mejia Chacon v. Blanche

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREN YAMILETH MEJIA CHACON; No. 21-851 Z.A.C.M., Agency Nos. A209-401-847 Petitioners, A209-401-848 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 14, 2026** Reno, Nevada Before: BADE, FORREST, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Karen Mejia Chacon (Chacon) and her minor daughter Z.A.C.M. (collectively Petitioners), are natives and citizens of Honduras who petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of the Immigration

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Judge’s (IJ) denial of their requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and deny the petition.

We review the agency’s asylum and withholding determinations for substantial evidence. See Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). Under that standard, the agency’s determinations “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Urias- Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. 537, 545 (2026) (quotation omitted).

A nexus between the petitioner’s particular social groups (PSGs) and the asserted persecution is required for both asylum and withholding of removal.

Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1074–75 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)) (asylum); Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 356 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)) (withholding). While the standards for these two forms of relief differ, when the agency concludes there is no nexus, the agency can rest on that conclusion to deny both forms of relief. See Rodriguez- Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that there is no nexus between the experiences Petitioners’ family members had with gangs and Petitioners’ asserted PSGs. The agency reasonably concluded from Chacon’s testimony that Petitioners were subject to extortion and other attention from the gang because of the gang’s criminal financial motive—not Petitioners’ membership in a

2 21-851 PSG. And as Chacon’s own testimony explains, the extortion they experienced did not correlate with the disappearance of her sister. Because Petitioners have not shown that the gang was motivated by anything other than furthering criminal activity, we have no basis to disturb the agency’s adverse nexus conclusion and denial of asylum and withholding of removal.1 See id. at 1019–20.

PETITION DENIED.