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 ARDO TULIO RIVAS-GAR C IA,

Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-73022 Age n c y No. A200-199-446
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 7, 2022 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : M UR G U IA, C hie f Judge , a nd GR A B ER an d B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r M a

rdo Tulio R

iva s-Ga rc ia , a native and c itiz e n of Gua te m a la , se e k s re vie w of a

fina l orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ), dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision tha t de nie d his 

# FIL ED APR 12 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.

* * The pa

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

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

pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e re vie w the a ge n c y ’ s fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e vide nc e , Guo v. Se ssions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018), a nd we
re vie w a due proc e s s c ha lle n ge de novo, Pa dilla -M artine z v. Holde r, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th C i r. 2014). W e de ny the pe tition. 1. Pe titione r a sse rts tha

t he fe ars ha

rm be c a use he is a

m e m be r of a pa rtic u la r soc ia l group—la

n d-owning c offe e growe rs or his fa m ily . B ut the IJ found, a nd the B IA a ffirm e d

a s not c le arly e rrone ous, tha t Pe t itione r fa ils to show that e ithe r the thre ats he re c e ive d or the m urde rs of two of his siblings we re “ on a c c ount of” his m e m

be rship in e ithe r purporte d soc ia l group. Rathe r, Pe titione r wa s the unfortuna

te vic tim of random

c rim ina l a c tivity . The e vide n c e doe s not
c om pe l a c ontra ry c onc lusion. B e c a

use Pe t itione r fa ils to e sta blish ne xus, the B IA pe rm issibly

de n i e d his a

p p lic ations for a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l
. 1 Se e Ze tino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding tha t an a lie n’ s de sire to be fre e from

random c rim i na l a c tivity

be a rs “ no ne xus” to a

prote c te d ground).

1 Pe titione r doe s not c ha l le nge the de nia l of prote c tion unde r the C o nve ntion Aga inst Torture , so we do not a ddre ss tha t issue
. 22. Pe titione r argue s tha t the IJ viola

te d his right to due

proc e ss by thre ate ning to m ake an a dve rse c re dibility finding if Pe titione r re v ie we d his writte n de c la ra tion during the h e aring. It would ha ve be e n pre m ature for the IJ to m ake
suc h a finding be fore the he aring ha d c onc lude d. Se e Ka ur v. Gonz a l e s, 418 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th C ir. 2005) (W h e n a sse ssing a

n a lie n’ s c re dibility

“ it is incum

be nt upon theIJ to vie w e a c h portion of a n a lie n’ s te s tim o ny

. . . in light of a

ll of the
e vide nc e pre se n te d.” ). B ut the B IA c orre c tly he ld tha t , e ve n a s sum ing tha

t the IJ viola te d his right to due

proc e ss by

c utting off a m ate ria l line of inquiry , Pe titione r fa ils to show tha

t he wa s pre

judic e d. Se e Pa dilla -M artine z , 770 F.3d a t 830 (“ To pre v a i l on a

due -proc e ss c l a im , a

pe titione r m

ust de m onstra

te both a viola t ion of rights a nd pre judic e .” ). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3