NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO GARCIA-SALINAS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72218 

Agency No. A200-156-721 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 9, 2022**

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Garcia-Salinas seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claim. As the facts are known to the parties, 

we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction 

* 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

FEB 11 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

“To be eligible for relief under CAT, an applicant bears the burden of 

establishing that [he] will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or 

acquiescence of a public official if removed to [his] native country.” XochihuaJaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). We review the factual findings 

underlying the BIA’s determination for substantial evidence. Avendano-Hernandez 

v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015). “In order for this court to reverse the 

BIA with respect to a finding of fact, the evidence must compel a different 

conclusion from the one reached by the BIA.” Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 

(9th Cir. 2011).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Garcia-Salinas is 

not eligible for CAT protection. 

1. Garcia-Salinas did not present evidence of a likely ongoing threat from 

his father. Garcia-Salinas’ father has not physically threatened any family member

since being imprisoned in 2009. Garcia-Salinas has not been in contact with his 

father for “a long time” and conceded he could try living in a different area of 

Mexico away from his father. See Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “the possibility of relocation within the country 

of removal” is a factor to consider). Garcia-Salinas provided no evidence for his 

claim that government officials released his father from prison early after accepting 
3 

bribes. Instead, the record reflects that the government arrested and imprisoned his 

father, and that it issued a restraining order protecting his mother.

2. Garcia-Salinas failed to offer evidence corroborating his claim that his 

brother Juan Carlos was kidnapped and ransomed. Despite Juan Carlos now living 

near San Diego, Garcia-Salinas did not obtain a declaration from him substantiating

the incident. Even assuming that Juan Carlos was kidnapped, Garcia-Salinas did not 

present evidence detailing why he himself would be a target of torture by these 

kidnappers. To the extent that Garcia-Salinas is claiming a fear of general unsafe 

conditions in Mexico, such a fear is insufficient for CAT purposes. See DelgadoOrtiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

3. As to his brother Ramiro’s beating at the hands of gang members and 

police, Garcia-Salinas presented no evidence showing why Garcia-Salinas was 

connected to the incident or why those involved would seek to target him for torture. 

Garcia-Salinas’ claims about this incident and the police involvement in it are highly 

speculative without more documentation or declarations supporting them.

In sum, “the claims of possible torture remain speculative.” Zheng, 644 F.3d 

at 835. The evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s. See 

Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890–91 (9th Cir. 2021).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.