NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IGNACIO RAMIREZ-LARIUS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-70549 

Agency No. A201-222-932 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 7, 2022**

Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District 

Judge.

Ignacio Ramirez-Larius (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for 

the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 10 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

upholding the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his claims for withholding of 

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

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

Petitioner argues that he will more likely than not face persecution on 

account of his membership in his family if he returns to Mexico. The BIA rejected 

this claim, reasoning that, even assuming Petitioner’s family was a cognizable 

social group, Petitioner had failed to establish any nexus between the potential 

threats he faced in Mexico and his family membership.1 See Barajas-Romero v. 

Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357-60 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that an applicant for 

withholding of removal must demonstrate that a protected ground under the Act 

was “a reason” for any past or likely future persecution).

The BIA’s conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner

testified that his uncle was killed “a long, long time ago” and that his sister was 

killed in 2007. He does not know why either family member was killed, though he 

thinks his uncle was killed because of an intra-family dispute and his sister might 

have been killed because a cartel believed that his family was involved in drugs. 

Petitioner’s other family members have remained in Mexico without being harmed. 

1 Because we conclude that this aspect of the BIA’s reasoning is supported 

by substantial evidence, we need not decide whether the BIA correctly concluded, 

in the alternative, that Petitioner’s family is not a cognizable “particular social 

group” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
3 

Petitioner testified that, after his sister was killed, he received a phone call from a 

person telling him that he would be killed if he returned to Mexico. The record is 

inconsistent regarding whether the caller was anonymous or was a family member. 

Petitioner also submitted general evidence about the violence being perpetrated by 

drug cartels and corruption among law enforcement officers in Mexico. In light of 

the lack of nonspeculative evidence that his relatives were killed because of their 

family membership, and in light of the fact that other family members have

remained in Mexico unharmed, Petitioner’s evidence does not compel the 

conclusion that Petitioner would more likely than not suffer persecution “on 

account of” his membership in his family. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 

1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Under [the substantial evidence] standard, we must 

uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary 

conclusion.”).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Petitioner 

is not eligible for CAT relief because Petitioner failed to show it is more likely 

than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. 

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “generalized evidence 

of violence and crime in Mexico [that was] not particular to Petitioners [was] 

insufficient to meet [the CAT] standard”).

PETITION DENIED.