N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AR IANO C ALDER O N OR TUNO,

Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-73304 Age n c y No. A071-644-040 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 Subm itte d April 12, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and B ADE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd JAC K, *** Distric t Judge
. M ariano C a lde ron Ortuno, a native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) a ffirm ing the



# FIL ED APR 14 2021 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ja nis Gra ham Ja c k, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Te xa s , sitting by de signa tion.orde r of the Im m igration Judge(“ IJ” ) de ny ing Ortuno’ s c la i m s for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ Torture C onve ntion” ) and orde ring him re m ove d to M e x ic o. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie wthe a ge nc y ’ s fa c t ua l de te rm inations for substa ntia l e vide nc e , whic h m e ans tha t we uphold those

de te rm inat ions “unle ss the e vide nc e in the re c ord c om pe ls a c ontra ry c onc lusion,”and we re vie w que stions of la w de novo. C

olev . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 769-70 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tion om i tte d). W e de ny

the pe tition. 1. A pe titione r c la im ing a sy lum be ars the burde n to show a “ we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution on a c c ount of ra c e , re ligion, na tiona lity , m e m

be rship in a pa rtic u la r soc ia l group, or politic a l opinion.” Se e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1). For withholding of re m ova l , a pe titione r m

ust show a “ c l e ar proba b ility of pe rse c ut ion” ba se d on a prote c te d ground. IN

S v . C ardoza-Fonse c a , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Unde r this sta n da rd, the prote c te d ground ne e d only be

“ a re a son” be hind thepe rse c ution. Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 358- 60 (9th C ir. 2017). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s c onc lusion tha

t Ortuno ha s fa ile d to show tha

t his m e m be rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group, in his c a se his fa m ily
m e m b e rship, is a

re a son for fe ar of pe rse c ution. Heha s not shown tha t fam ily
2m e m

b e rship wa s a

re a son for pa st e xtortion a tte m pts or for a

ny thre ats of future ha rm . He pre se n t e d no e vide nc e tha t the de aths of his gra

n d-ne phe w a

nd ne phe w we re on a c c ount of fa

m ily tie s. Ortuno sta

te d tha t the pe ople who a

tte m pte d to e xtort him

and his fa

m i ly did so be c a

use the y a s k e ve ry one for m one y . Se v e ra l
m e m b e rs of his fa

m ily c o ntinue to re side in M e xic o sa fe ly . Fe ar of ge n e ra liz e d c rim ina lity

doe s not sa

tisfy the ne xus re quire m e nt. Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th C ir. 2010). 2. Unde r the Torture C onve ntion, a pe titione r be ars the burde n to show tha t

“ it is m o re like ly

tha n not tha t he or she would be torture d if re m o ve d to the propose d c ountry of re m ova l.” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). “ Torture ” m e ans “ any a c t by whic h se v e re pa in or suffe ring . . . is inte ntiona lly inflic te d on a pe rson” for spe c ifie d purpose s “ whe n suc h pa in or suffe ring is inflic te d by , or at the instiga tion of, or with the c onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of, a public offic i a l ... or othe r pe rson a c ting in a

n offic ia l c a

pa c ity .” Id. § 1208.18(a)(1). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s a nd IJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t Ortuno ha s fa ile d to e sta

blish a c la i m unde r the Torture C onve ntion. Although he wa s subje c t to e x tortion a

tte m p ts, he re fuse d to pa

y and no one wa s ha

rm e d a s a re sult. Ortuno te stifie d tha

t he c ould re loc a te and a

void future torture . Ge ne ra l e vide nc e of c rim ina lity

and c orruption in M e xic o is insuffic ie nt. 8 C . F.R . § 1208.16(c )(3)(ii), 3se e D e lgado-Ortiz v. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam )

(stating “ ge ne ra l iz e d e vide nc e of viole nc e and c rim e ” that “ is not pa rtic ula r to [the ] Pe titione r[] . . . is insuffic ie nt to m e e t th[e ] sta nda rd” for showing tha

t “ it is m ore like ly tha n not tha t [he ] would be torture d if re turne d” to his hom e c ountry ). 3. Ortuno a

rgue s tha t the Notic e to Appe ar fa ile d to list the tim e an d date of the re m ova l proc e e dings. Suc h fa ilure doe s not strip the im m igration c o urt of jurisdic tion. K

aringithi v. W

hitak e r , 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th C i r. 2019). The pe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D .

4