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 AR C O DIAZ-AR

R O YO, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 21-70900 Age n c y No. A087-456-055
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

June 10, 2022 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and SANC HEZ, C irc uit Judge s, a n d ANTOON, * ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JUN 14 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 ora l a

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

* * * The Honora

ble John Antoon II, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the M iddle Distric t

of Florida , sitting by

de s igna tion.M r. M a rc o Dia z -Arroy o , a

c itiz e n of M e x ic o, pe titions this C ourt for re vie w of the de nia l of his a sy lum , withholding of re m o va l, a nd C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ) c la im s ba se d on the Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) ne g ative
re a s ona ble fe ar de te rm ination. As the IJ c orre c tly

de te rm ine d, M r. Dia z -Arroy o ’ s fe ar that he would be ta rge te d by a c a rte l ba se d on the a s sum

p t ion tha t he ha s m one y

upon re t urning from the Unite d State s is not a prote c te d ground for a sy lum -ba se d re lie f. Se e Barbosa v . Barr , 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th C ir. 2019); De lgado-Ortiz v

. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th C ir. 2010). M r. Dia z -Arroy o a dditiona lly argue s tha

t his fe ar of future pe rse c ution is
c onne c te d to his m e m

be rship in two othe

r partic ula

r soc ia l groups—

those who a

re ta rge te d for viole nc e by

ga ngs or c a rte ls, a nd his fa m i ly , who he c la im s we re spe c ific a lly

ta rge te d by a c arte l . The gove rnm e nt c onte nds tha t M r. Dia z -Arroy o
wa ive d this a

rgum e nt by

fa iling to raise it be fore the IJ. W e disa gre e . M r. Dia z Arroy o wa s te stify ing pro se , a nd a lthough hec ould ha

ve be tte r artic ulate d this
c la im by fram ing his te stim ony

a s a n a rgum e nt tha

t he wa s pa

rt of the se pa

rtic ula r
soc i a l groups, hedid te stify tha t he fe are d tha

t the c arte l would ha

rm him and tha t the c arte l ha d pre viously

ta rge te d his fa

m ily . W ithout the

a id of c ounse l, he suffic i e ntly

ra ise d the se argum e nts for this c ourt to re vie w on a ppe a l.
2Although Mr. Dia z -Arroy o prope rly ra ise d the se argum e nts be fore the IJ, he

c annot pre va il on e ithe r the ory . The Ninth C irc uit ha s c onsiste n tly re je c te d his first
argum e nt tha

t a ge ne ra l fe ar of pe rse c ution by a c arte l be a

rs a ne xus to a

prote c te d ground. Se e

, e .g. , Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th C ir. 2010). And M r. Dia z -Arroy o c annot show a ne xus be twe e n the a lle ge d pe rse c ution a nd
m e m b e rship in his fa

m ily be c a use the re c ord doe s not c onta in a ny e vide nc e showing tha

t e ithe r his ne p he w’ s or his brother’ s m e m b e rship in the

fam ily wa s
one c e n tra l re a son, or e ve n a re a son tha

t the Ja lisc o Nue vo Ge ne ra c ion c arte l kille d the m . Se e Santos-Ponc e v . W ilk inson , 987 F.3d 886, 890-91 (9th C ir. 2021). Additionally , the fa c t tha

t his m othe r, two siste rs, a nd brothe r c ontinue to livein his hom e t own unha

rm e d by the c arte l unde rm ine s his c la im of future pe rse c ution ba se d on fa

m ilia l re lationship. Id . B e c a use M r. Dia z -Arroy o fa ile d to e sta blish a
ne xus be twe e n his fe ar of pe rse c ution a nd his propose d prote c te d soc ia l group, we uphold thede nia l of his a sy lum and withholding of re

m ova l c l a im s. M r. Dia z -Arroy o a lso c onte nds tha t he qua lifie s for prote c tion unde r the C AT be c a

use gove rnm e nt offic ia ls in M e xic o a c quie sc e to viole nc e pe rpe t ra te d by
c arte ls a ga i nst M e x ic an c itiz e ns. His ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e doe s not de m onstra te , howe v e r, tha

t he pe rsona lly is m ore like ly tha n not to be torture d

if re m ove d, a

nd it the re fore is insuffic ie n t to m e rit C AT re lie f. S e e De l gado-Ortiz , 600 F.3d a

t 1152.
3The m otion to ta ke judic ia l notic e is gra

nte d. The te m pora ry sta y of re m ova l re m a i ns in e ffe c t until the m andate issue s. The m o tion for sta

y of re m ova l is othe rwise de nie d. The pe tition is DE NIE D in pa rt a nd DISM ISSE D in pa

rt.

4