NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATHON MORALES-ALFARO, aka 

Juan Murillo-Galvez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-70880

Agency No. A095-785-325

MEMORANDUM*

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Submitted July 26, 2022

**

San Francisco, California

Before: M. MURPHY,*** GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

* 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).

*** The Honorable Michael R. Murphy, United States Circuit Judge for 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

AUG 3 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Jonathon Morales-Alfaro (also known as Juan Murillo-Galvez), a 

native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration 

Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). This court has 

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review for substantial 

evidence factual findings underlying the BIA’s determination that a 

petitioner is not eligible for . . . withholding of removal[ ] or CAT relief.” 

Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). Under 

that standard, “[t]he agency’s ‘findings of fact are conclusive unless any 

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” 

Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) (quoting 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)).

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that 

Morales-Alfaro failed to establish past persecution. See Sharma v. Garland, 

9 F.4th 1052, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2021); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). Absent the 

presumption of future persecution that would accompany a finding of past 

persecution, substantial evidence (i.e., the absence of harm to his previously 

threatened family members, the localized nature of his experience with the 

drug gang, and the uncertain character of the inquiries made concerning his 
3 

whereabouts) supports the BIA’s conclusion that Morales-Alfaro failed to 

establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in Mexico. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). Finally, substantial evidence supports the 

BIA’s conclusion that Morales-Alfaro failed to carry his burden of 

establishing that he could not safely relocate to another area of Mexico. See 

id. § 1208.16(b)(3)(i).

2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief 

because Morales-Alfaro failed to show it is more likely than not he will be 

tortured if returned to Mexico. See id. § 1208.16(c)(2); Nuru v. Gonzales, 

404 F.3d 1207, 1216-17, 1224-25 (9th Cir. 2005).

3. We lack jurisdiction to consider Morales-Alfaro’s challenge to the 

IJ’s denial of his request for voluntary departure because he did not raise 

this issue before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Vasquez-Rodriguez v. 

Garland, 7 F.4th 888, 894-95 (9th Cir. 2021).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.