NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODRIGO LUNA MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-996

Agency No.

A201-241-356

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 23, 2023**

Portland, Oregon

Before: BENNETT, VANDYKE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Rodrigo Luna Martinez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of 

his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 

* 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

AUG 25 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-996

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions. 

Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). We review 

questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. We deny 

the petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA and IJ’s holding that Luna 

Martinez is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal because he does not 

have a well-founded fear of persecution. Although the IJ found, and the BIA 

agreed, that Luna Martinez had “a subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable 

fear” of persecution in Puebla, Mexico, his family’s hometown, they also found 

that Luna Martinez could avoid persecution by safely relocating to another part of 

the country and that it would be reasonable to expect him to do so. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii) (asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2) (withholding of removal);

Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659–60 (9th Cir. 2019).

The country conditions reports in the record support this finding. And 

though Luna Martinez’s communication, anxiety, and attention disorders may 

make it difficult for him to navigate daily life without the help of his family, his 

many years as an effective Herbalife salesman, his ability to maintain a job in 

construction, and the fact that Spanish is his first language, all support the BIA and 

IJ’s conclusion that he could reasonably be expected to independently establish 
3 22-996

himself outside of Puebla. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(iii) (where persecutor is a 

private actor, presumption is that internal relocation is reasonable unless applicant 

establishes otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence).

2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA and IJ’s holding that Luna 

Martinez is not eligible for CAT relief because he failed to establish that it is more 

likely than not that he will be tortured after removal to Mexico. The country 

conditions reports submitted by Luna Martinez indicate that there are parts of 

Mexico that are relatively safe. As discussed above, substantial evidence supports 

the BIA and IJ’s conclusion that Luna Martinez could reasonably be expected to 

relocate to one such place. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii) (evidence of ability to 

relocate is relevant to assessing whether it is more likely than not that petitioner 

will be tortured after removal).

PETITION DENIED.