N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GREGORIO GAR C IA-M OR A LES, Pe t i tione r, v. R OB ER T M . W ILKINSON, Ac ting Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-72751 Age n c y No. A087-913-396
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 Fe brua

ry 11, 2021 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON, C HR ISTEN, a

n d B ADE, C irc uit Judge s . C onc urre nc e by

Judge C H R ISTEN Pe titione r Gre gorio Ga

rc ia -M ora le s, a

native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, a ppe a ls the B IA’ s orde r de ny ing his a pplic ations for withholding of re m ova l a nd re lie f unde r the C onve n tion Aga inst Torture(C A T). Pe titione r a lso c ha lle nge s the B IA’ s 

# FIL ED MAR 3 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).de c ision to deny his m o tion to re m a

n d. The m otion re que ste d furthe r c onside ra tion of his a pplic ation for c anc e l lation of re m ova l in light of c ha nge d c i rc um sta

nc e s a nd the Im m igration Judge ’ s (IJ) de c ision to deny Pe titione r’ s m otion for a c ontinua nc e pe nding thea djudic ation of his a pplic ation for a

non-im m igra n t U visa . W e de ny the p e tition. W e re vie w for substa

ntia l e vide nc e the fa c tua l findings supporting the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha

t a pe titione r is not e ligiblefor withholding of rem ova l or C AT
re lie f, Yali W

ang v . Se ssions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th C ir. 2017), a nd re vie w de novo its de te rm inations on que s tions of la w, R odrigue

z v . Holde r , 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th C ir. 2012). TheB IA’ s orde r de ny ing re m a n d is re vie we d for a

buse of disc re tion, Malhi v . IN

S , 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th C i r. 2003), a s is theIJ’ s orde r de ny ing pe titione r’ s m otion for a c ontinua n c e , Sandov al-Luna v . Muk a se y , 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th C ir. 2008). 1. The B IA did not e rr by de ny ing pe titione r’ s a

pplic at ion for withholding of re m ova l. Pe titione r m

ust show a

“ c le ar proba

bility ” of pe rse c ution; tha t is, he
m ust show it is m

ore like l y tha n not he will be pe rse c ute d on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground if he is re m ove d. Garc ia v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting Alv are

z-Santos v
. IN

S , 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th C ir. 2003)). This is a
m ore e xa c ting sta

n da rd tha n the “ we ll-founde d fe ar,” 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(42)(A),

2of pe rse c ution ne c e ssa ry to support a

n a sy l um c la im
. Se e Dav ila v . Barr , 968 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th C ir. 2020). The IJ found pe titione r did not suffe r pa st pe rse c ution on a c c ount of his
m e m b e rship in the

propose d soc ia l group “ a pe rson thre ate ne d by a c rim i na l who [Pe titione r] te stifie d a ga inst in c ourt.” Pe titione r argue s tha t he wa s sta

bbe d by his brothe r in 2001, tha

t he te s tifie d a ga inst his brothe r, a nd tha t his brother wa s the n ja ile d a nd de porte d . Pe titione r fe ars re tribution a t the ha nds of his brother if he is
re turne d to M e xic o. This c la im fa ils be c a

use pe titione r c ould not ha ve be e n sta bbe d by his brothe r in 2001 on ac c ount of his te stim o ny in his brother’ s c rim ina l proc e e dings: those

proc e e d i ngs did not oc c ur until a fte r pe titione r wa s sta bbe d. Furthe r, the re c ord inc lude s e vide nc e tha t the 2001 sta

bbing wa s the re sult of a pe rsona l disputeand not on a c c ount of a ny prote c te d ground. Thus, petitione r fa ile d to e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground a nd wa s not e ntitle d to the pre sum

ption of futurepe rse c ution. The B IA’ s finding tha

t Pe titione r c ould sa fe ly

and re a sona

b l y avoid future pe rse c ution by

re loc ating within M e xic o wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Tamang v . Holde r , 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [A] pe rc e ive d fe ar of future pe rse c ut ion m a

y be re butte d if the pe titione r c ould re loc ate e lse w he re in his or he r native c ountry , a

nd it would be re a sona

ble to e xpe c t the pe titione r to do
3so.” ). Pe titione r’ s brothe r live s with the ir pa re nts in Gue rre ro, M e xic o. Pe titione r te stifie d tha

t, if re m ove d, he would not re t urn to Gue rre ro. The re c ord doe s not c om pe l the finding tha

t pe titione r’ s brothe r, a

lone individual, is c a

pa ble of finding pe titione r if he doe s not disc lose his loc ation to his fa m i ly
. 2. To be e ligiblefor withholding of rem ova l unde r C AT, pe titione r m ust show it is “

m ore like ly tha

n not tha t he . . . would betorture d if re m ove d” to M e x ic o. 8 C .F.R . § 208.16(c )(2). Torture is a ny a c t tha t inte ntiona lly

inflic ts

“ se ve re pa in or suffe ring” on a pe rson for the purpose s of obta ining inform ation or
a c onfe ssion, punishm

e nt, intim idation, c oe rc i on, or disc rim i nation. Id. § 208.18(a )(1). Torture m

ust be “ inflic te d

by or at the instiga

t ion of or with the
c onse n t or a c quie s c e nc e of a public offic ia l or othe r pe rson a c ting in a n offic ia l
c a pa c ity .” Id
. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l a finding tha

t the M e xic an gove rnm e nt would
a c quie sc e to pe titione r be i ng torture d. Pe titione r doe s not c onte s t tha t polic e in M e x ic o se arc he d for his brothe r a fte r he sta bbe d a nothe r vic tim

in 2010. The fruitle ss inve s tiga

t ion by M e xic an polic e offic e rs doe s not c om pe l a finding on
a c quie sc e nc e . Se e Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ Evide nc e tha

t the polic e we re aware of a pa rtic ula r c rim e , but fa ile d to bring the

4pe rpe t

ra t ors to justic e , is not in itse lf suffic ie nt to e sta blish a c q uie sc e nc e in the
c rim e .” ). 3. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing pe titione r’ s m otion to
re m and for furthe r c onside ra tion. “ The form a l re quire m e nts of a m o tion to re m and
and a m otion to re ope n a

re the sa m e .” Rome ro-Ruiz v . Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th C ir. 2008). Thus, in orde r to pre va il on his motion to re m a nd: (1) pe titione r m

ust “ sta t e the ne w fa c ts tha

t will beprove n

at a he a ring to behe ld if the
m otion is gra

nte d an d sha ll be s upporte d by a ffidavits or other e vide ntia ry m ate ria l ” ; (2) the ne w e vide nc e m ust be “ m ate ria l” ; (3) the e vide nc e m u st not ha ve be e n av a i la

ble and would not ha

ve be e n disc o ve re d or pre se nte d at the pre vious proc e e ding; a

nd (4) pe titione r m

ust “ de m onstra

te tha t the ne w e vide nc e , whe n c onside re d toge the r with thee vide nc e pre se nte d at the origina l he aring, would
e sta blish prim a

fa c ie e ligibility

for the re lie f sought.” Bhasin v . Gonzale s , 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th C ir. 2005); s e e also IN S v . Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 97–98 (1988). Whe n the B IA de nie d pe titione r’ s m otion for re m and, it c onside re d the ne w e vide nc e tha

t pe titione r’ s wife be c am e a la wful pe rm a

n e n t re side nt a fte r his
a pplic ation for withholding was de nie d. Vie wing this e vide nc e in the a ggre gate with wha t wa s known a

bout theha

rdship pe titione r’ s da

ughte r would e xpe rie nc e if pe titione r wa s re m ove d , the B IA c onc lude d tha t pe titione r fa ile d to m ake a prim a 5fa c i e showing of e xc e ptiona l a nd e xtre m e ly

unusua l ha

rdship. “ The ‘ e xc e ptiona l
and e xtre m e ly

unusua l ha

rdship’ sta

nda rd is a ve ry de m a n d ing one .” Garc i a v . Holde r , 621 F.3d 906, 913 (9th C ir. 2010). B e c a use the B IA a

pplie d the c orre c t le ga l sta nda rd and c onside re d a ll the a ppropria te e vide nc e in the re c ord, we
c onc lude its de c i sion to de ny pe titione r’ s m otion to re m a n d wa s not “ arbitra

ry , irrationa l, or c o ntra

ry to la w.” Se e Vale riano v . Gonzale s , 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th C ir. 2007). 4. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion by

a ffirm ing the IJ’ s de c i sion to de ny pe titione r’ s m otion for a

c ontinua nc e . In M

atte r of L-A-B-R- , 27 I. & N. De c . 405 (2018), theAttorne y

Ge ne ra l se t forth se ve ra l fa c tors IJs should c onside r whe n de c iding whe the r to gra

nt c ontinua

nc e s to a l low pe titione rs to pursuec olla te ra l
re lie f from

an othe r a uthority , inc luding: (1) the like lihood tha

t the a lie n will
re c e ive the c olla

te ra l re lie f; (2) whe the r the re lie f will m at e ria lly a ffe c t the outc om e of the re m o v a l proc e e dings; (3) whe the r the a lie n ha s e xe rc ise d
re a s ona ble dilige nc e in pursuing tha t re lie f; (4) DHS’ s position on the m otion; (5) the l e ngth of there que ste d c ontinua nc e ; a nd (6) the proc e dura l history of the c a se . Id. at 413. TheIJ m

ust foc us prim arily

on the first two fa c t ors. Id. The B IA c onside re d the fa c tors se t forth in M atte r of L-A-B-R- and rule d pe titione r ha d not e s ta

blishe d “ good c a

use ” for a c o n tinua nc e . The re m ova l
6proc e e dings ha d be e n pe n ding for ove r six y e a rs, the ba sis for pe t itione r’ s U visa
arose in 2001 but he

ha d y e t to a

pply for a U visa by the tim e of his re m ova l proc e e dings in 2016, a

nd the gove rnm e nt oppose d the c o ntinua n c e . On this re c ord,
we c onc lude pe titione r fa ile d to e sta blish theB IA a

buse d its disc re tion by

de ny ing the re que ste d c ontinua

nc e .
PE T IT IO N DE NIE D

7Garc ia-Morale s v . W ilk i nson , No. 19-72751 C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring I a gre e pe titione r c annot pre v a il on his c la im tha t the B IA e rre d

by de ny ing his m otion to re m and, but I would dism iss tha t portion of the

pe tition. In m

y vie w, we la c k jurisdic t ion to re vie w the B IA’ s de te rm ination be c a u se the e vide nc e subm itte d doe s not a ddre ss “ a ha rdship ground so distinc

t from tha t c onside re d pre v iously

a s to m ak e the m otion to [re m and] a re que st for ne w re lie f.” Se e Fe rnande z v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th C ir. 2006). 

# FIL ED MAR 3 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS