[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10579

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ISIDRO GINEZ TECPIL, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A206-805-244

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10579

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Isidro Ginez Tecpil petitions for review of the immigration 

judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision concurring with the asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination, which was issued within the 

context of a reinstated order of removal and viewed as a final order 

of removal from the United States. On appeal, Tecpil argues that 

the IJ erred by affirming the asylum officer’s finding that he had not 

established a reasonable fear of either future persecution or torture

if he was removed to Mexico, as required for withholding of removal or relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”), respectively. After thorough review, we deny 

the petition for review.1

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), a 

noncitizen shall not be removed to a country if his life or freedom 

would be threatened in such country on account of race, religion, 

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political 

opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). For withholding-of-removal claims, 

1 We have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s review of the asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination because it was issued within the context of 

a reinstated order of removal, which is viewed as a final order of removal. 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); see Avila v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 560 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 

2009) (“An order of reinstatement is a final order of removal under § 

1252(a)(1).”).

USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 2 of 7
22-10579 Opinion of the Court 3

“[t]he alien bears the burden of demonstrating that it is more likely 

than not [he] will be persecuted or tortured upon being returned 

to h[is] country.” Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1232 

(11th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted). The burden of proof is upon 

the noncitizen to show his eligibility for withholding of removal 

under the INA. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b). 

An alien may satisfy his burden of proof for withholding of 

removal by establishing past persecution on a protected ground. 

Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 735 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2013). 

We’ve indicated that “persecution is an extreme concept, requiring 

more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation, and that [m]ere harassment does not amount to persecution.” Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231 (quotations omitted); see also 

Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008) 

(holding that a minor beating does not constitute persecution); 

Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding that state officials watching and occasionally searching an individual’s home constitute “mere harassment”). The noncitizen 

need not always show that he would be singled out individually for 

persecution; rather, he may sustain the burden of proof by showing 

a pattern or practice of persecution of a group similarly situated to 

him in which he is included or with which he may be identified. 8 

C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2)(i)-(ii).

“To establish eligibility for CAT relief, an applicant must 

show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by, or 

with the acquiescence of, government officials if returned to the 

USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10579

designated country of removal.” Todorovic v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621 

F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2010); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). 

“An alien who: has been ordered removed; has been found under 

§ 1208.16(c)(3) to be entitled to protection under the [CAT]; and is 

subject to the provisions for mandatory denial of withholding of 

removal under § 1208.16(d)(2) or (d)(3), shall be granted deferral of 

removal to the country where he [] is more likely than not to be 

tortured.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a). Unlike the asylum and withholding-of-removal provisions of the INA, the CAT does not require 

that the noncitizen prove that he would be tortured because of 

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, 

or political opinion. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) with 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(b).

“In order to establish a due process violation, an alien must 

show that he [] was deprived of liberty without due process of law, 

and that the asserted error caused him substantial prejudice.” Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 329 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). “To show substantial prejudice, the petitioner must 

show the alleged due process violation would have affected the 

outcome of the case.” Avila, 560 F.3d at 1285. 

In this case, the record evidence does not compel an outcome in Tecpil’s favor.2 Rather, the record fully supports the IJ’s 

2 Under our case law, it is unclear which standard of review to apply to an 

immigration judge’s negative reasonable fear determination. In fact, in a recent case, Priva v. U.S. Attorney General, we expressly declined to decide 

which standard of review applies in this situation. 34 F.4th 946, 957 n.5 (11th 

USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 4 of 7
22-10579 Opinion of the Court 5

determination that Tecpil failed to demonstrate a reasonable fear 

of persecution or torture in Mexico because the agency reasonably 

determined that Tecpil failed to establish -- through evidence of 

past persecution -- that he would be harmed in the future on account of a protected ground by gang members, members of the 

government, or local “delinquents.” See Rodriguez, 735 F.3d at 

1308. In support of this showing, Tecpil described an incident in 

Mexico in which a gang stole his cellphone. However, the record 

reveals that the theft was motivated by money and was not specifically related to any of the five protected grounds under § 

1231(b)(3) -- namely, race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). 

To the extent Tecpil argues that he would face persecution 

in Mexico based on his political opinion, this argument similarly 

fails. Tecpil only provided a single instance in 2005 where he said 

he was pressured to vote. However, he added that the pressure he 

encountered was due to a generic and widespread effort to garner 

votes in a local election, and not due to his specific political opinion. 

Tecpil further admitted that, when an election is held, everyone 

was pressured to vote if candidates felt as if they were going to lose, 

Cir.), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Aug. 11, 2022) (No. 22-134). We mentioned 

two possible standards of review, “the more deferential ‘facially legitimate and 

bona fide reason’” and “the more demanding substantial evidence standard,” 

but ultimately declined to specify which standard of review applies because, 

even if reviewed for substantial evidence, the record did not “compel an outcome in Priva’s favor.” Id. As we’ll explain, we need not decide which standard of review to apply in this case either.

USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 22-10579

rather than targeting him or other individuals for a specific reason. 

Thus, Tecpil did not show that he had been singled out for threats 

based on an unidentified political opinion, and the IJ properly 

found that this single instance failed to rise to the “extreme concept” of persecution under our precedent. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d 

at 1231.

Nor does Tecpil’s fear of becoming a victim of criminal activity qualify him for withholding of removal because there is no 

evidence or indication of past persecution that would demonstrate 

that he will more likely than not be persecuted upon returning to 

Mexico. See id. at 1232. In arguing that he is a member of a protected group who may be subject to a pattern or practice of persecution, he says only that he will be the member of a group who 

returns to Mexico from the United States and may be perceived as 

wealthy. 8 C.F.R § 208.16(b)(2)(i)-(ii). Yet Tecpil failed to meet his 

burden of proof through examples, specific instances, or any other 

evidence that simply returning from the United States avails people 

to a pattern or practice of persecution in Mexico. Id.

As for Tecpil’s claim for CAT relief, he made general comments about the Mexican government failing to control gangs or 

police failing to respond adequately to calls. However, these statements are insufficient to establish government acquiescence to torture for the purposes of the CAT. Todorovic, 621 F.3d at 1324; see 

also 8 C.F.R. §1208.16(c)(2). And Tecpil offered nothing to show

that he would more likely than not be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, the government or police. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16.

USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 6 of 7
22-10579 Opinion of the Court 7

Finally, Tecpil failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of 

liberty without due process of law, or that the IJ’s alleged error in 

asking too few questions caused him substantial prejudice. Garcia, 

329 F.3d at 1222. Tecpil’s claim -- that he may have established a 

basis for a political opinion claim if he had been asked further questions -- is speculative and without merit. Indeed, Tecpil was represented by counsel before the IJ, and his counsel did not object to 

the questions or submit documents or evidence that might support 

a political-opinion claim. Thus, Tecpil failed to show that the alleged due process violation would have affected the outcome of his 

case. Avila, 560 F.3d at 1285. 

In short, because the evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Tecpil failed to meet his burden of proof, we deny the 

petition for review.

PETITION DENIED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 7 of 7