N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOAQUIN C H AVEZ-VILLEGAS,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-72616 Age n c y No. A078-103-328
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 11, 2022 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C LIFTON, M . SM ITH, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Joa quin C have z Ville ga s pe titions for re vie wof the de c ision by the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls tha

t a ffirm e d the Im

m igrat ion Judge ’ s de nia l of his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ). W e de ny the pe tition. 

# FIL ED JAN 24 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w le ga l que stions de novo a nd the a ge nc y ’ s fa c t

ua l findings for substa

ntia l e vide n c e . Se eAde n v . W ilk inson , 989 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th C i r. 2021). W e re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s c a se -by
c a se de te rm inations tha

t a c rim e is “pa

rtic ula rly se rious” for a

b use of disc re tion, lim ite d to whe the r the a ge nc y “ re lie d on thea

ppropria te fa c tors a

nd prope r e vide nc e [.] ” Av e ndano-He rnande z v . Ly nc h , 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th C ir. 2015) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d) (quoting Anay a–Ortiz v . Holde r , 594 F.3d 673, 676 (9th C i r. 2010)). 1. W e de c l ine to c onside r C hav e z Ville ga s’ s a rgum e nt tha

t Pe re i ra rule d by im plic at ion tha

t a Notic e to Appe a

r without time and pla c e inform ation c annot ve st the a ge nc y with subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. Se ege ne rally Pe re ira v . Se

s sions , 138 S. C t. 2105 (2018). He

fa ile d to e xha

ust his a dm i nistra

tive re m e die s with re ga

rd to this a rgum e nt de spite hav i ng the opportunity to do so during the

se c ond round of brie fing be fore the B IA. Pe r e ira wa s issue d on June21, 2018, a nd he subm itte d his brie f to the B IA on July

31, 2019, in his a

ppe a l of the IJ’ s post-re m and de c ision to de ny C AT prote c tion a

nd e nte r a re m ova l orde r. 2. W e de ny

C hav e z Ville ga s’ s pe t ition a s to his a sy lum and withholding of
re m ova l c la im s. Eve n if we a ssum e without de c iding tha t the a ge n c y

a buse d its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t he c om m itte d a “ pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e ” tha

t

2 0
- 7 2 6 1 6 2re nde re d him ine ligiblefor a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l, the a ge nc y ’ s
a lte rnative de nia l of thosec la im s on them e rits wa s ba s e d on fa c tua l findings tha t
we re supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . W ith re ga rd to a sy lum , substa

ntia l e vide n c e supporte d the a g e nc y ’ s finding that he did not e sta

blish tha t he fa c e d pa st pe rse c ution or ha d a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution on a c c ount of his me m be rship in a pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group. The
re c o rd doe s not c om

pe l a n outc om e c ontra

ry to the IJ’ s finding tha

t his te stim ony , a lthough “ g e ne ra lly

c re dible [,] ” wa s “ spe c ulat i[ve ] whe n he c onc lude s tha t it wa s the p olic e offic e rs tha

t turne d him

ove r to the [NGC ] ” and tha t the e nc ounte r wa s not on a c c ount of a

prote c te d ground but ra

the r “ pure e xtortion by

a c rim ina l ga

ng, whic h is not a

ba sis for a

grant of a sy lum [.] ” The B IA a ffirm e d the IJ’ s c re dibility findings, a

ptly quoting Ze t ino ’ s holding tha t the “ d e s ire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by c rim ina l s m otiva

te d by the ft or ra

n dom viole nc e by

ga ng m e m be rs be a rs no ne xus to a

prote c te d ground.” Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010). W e c onc lude tha

t the a ge nc y

pre s e nte d “ a

re a sone d a

na l y sis of thee v ide nc e
a s a whole and c ite [d] spe c ific insta nc e s in the re c o rd tha

t form the ba sis of the
a dve rse c re dibility

finding.” Tamang v . Holde r , 598 F.3d 1083, 1093-94 (9th C ir. 2010). M ore ove r, e ve n if C have z Ville ga s’ s te stim ony we re e ntire l y c re dible , it would not c om

pe l a ny re a sona ble a djudic ator to re a c h a c ontra ry outc om e to the

2 0
- 7 2 6 1 6 3a ge nc y ’ s c onc lusion tha t he “ h a s not de m onstra

te d tha t the ha rm he suffe re d a

nd fe ars from

the c arte l ha s a

ne xus to a

prote c t e d ground[.] ” W ith re ga rd to withholding of re

m ova l, substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supporte d the
a ge nc y ’ s finding tha

t he did not e sta

blish tha t it wa s m ore like ly

tha n not tha t he would be pe rse c ute d on a c c o unt of a prote c te d ground. Se eSanjaa v
. Se ssions , 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th C ir. 2017) (noting tha t the sta nda rd of proof for withholding of re m ova l is higher tha

n tha t for a sy lum). 3. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supporte d the a g e n c y ’ s finding tha t C have z Ville ga s did not show tha

t it wa s m ore proba

ble tha n not tha t he would fa c e torture c arrie d out by or with thea c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt. W e re c e ntly rule d a g a inst a
nonc itiz e n se e k i ng C A T prote c tion dueto the risk pose d by the NGC and a lle ging that the gove rnm e nt “ c ollude s with c arte ls a nd is ge ne ra lly

ine ffe c t ive in de t e rring
and prose c uting c rim e [,] ” ; we c onc lude d tha t “ while on oc c a sion som e c orrupt offic ia ls m ay

turn a blind e y e to c arte l a c t ivity , the M e xic an gove rnm e nt, ra the r tha n be ing willfully

blind to c arte l viole n c e and torture , a c tive ly c o m bats a n d prose c ute s c arte l a c tivity .” B.R. v . Garland , 4 F.4th 783, 800-01 (9th C ir. 2021). C have z Ville ga s did not introduc e e vide nc e proving otherwise . Substa ntia l
e vide nc e a l so supporte d

the a ge nc y ’ s c onc l usion tha t “ it is m o re tha

n re a sona ble to

2 0
- 7 2 6 1 6 4e xpe c t tha

t [he ] will live

or ‘ loc ate ’ him s e lf in [a ] sa fe are a of M e xic o[.] ” Se e8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B ). W e de ny the pe tition a s to his C AT c la im
. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

2 0
- 7 2 6 1 6 5