NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARIES GUADALUPE VILLA BUELNA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 71098

Agency No. A087

- 918

- 526

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 8 , 2020 * *

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Aries Guadalupe Villa Bue l na , a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention

* 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

JUN 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 Villa Buelna fears pe rsecution by unidentified

extortionists whom she believes are responsible both for her brother ’s murder in a

drive

- by shooting and for threatening phone calls ma de before and after her brother’s

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

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Villa Buelna failed to

demonstrate probable persecution attributable to her famil y ties

. See 8

U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C. F.R. § 1208.16(b); see also Flores

- Vega v. Barr , 932

F.3d 878, 886 (9th Cir. 2019) (reviewing denial of withholding for substantial

evidence). Only Villa Buelna’s aunt and brother received threats

, the most recent of

which occurred in early 2010 , and h er aunt did not experience additional problems

after relocating to another town in Mexico

. See Lanza v. Ashcroft

, 389 F.3d 917

,

934

– 35 (9th Cir. 2004) ( crediting temporal remoteness of persecution and safety of

similarly situated family members as substantial evidence ). Nothing in the record

suggests her mother and sister , both of whom reside in Mexico, received similar

threats. See id. ; see also Tamang v. Holder , 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010)

(considering threatened family members ’ safety i n petitioner’s home country

“especially significant”). Indeed, Villa Buelna agreed that living in a different part

of Mexico would allow her to avoid the harm she fears. See Gon zalez

- Medina v.

1 Vi lla Buelna conceded at her hearing that she was statutorily time

- barred

from applying for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B).3

Holder

, 641 F.3d 333

, 338 (9th Cir. 2011) (“ An applicant for withholding of removal

cannot establish that it was more likely than not that she would be subject to future

persecution ‘ if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of

the [proposed country of removal]. ’ ” (alter ation in original) (quoting 8

C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii)) )

. Meanwhile, her brother’s apparent involvement in

illegal activity suggests that the extortionists were otherwise motivated or that his

murder was unrelated to the extortion demands

. Those facts do not compel a finding

that any persecution likely to be endured by Vila Buena would be on account of her

family ties

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) ( stating “ administrative findings of fact

are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to

the contrary” ).

These considerations also support the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See 8

C.F.R. § § 1208.16( c ) , 1208.18(a)(1) ; see also Lanza

, 389 F.3d at 936 (requiring

“ particularized threat of torture, rather than any other form of persecution ” ( citation

omitted) )

. As does the absence of evidence suggesting the extortionists acted as , at

the behest of, or with the consent or acquiescence of Mexican officials. See 8

C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7) (“ Acquiescence

. . . r equires that the public official, prior to

the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter

b reach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity. ”). And

the evidence of general police corruption and inadequate enforcement , while serious,4

stops short of showing a threat particular to Villa Buelna

. See Ramirez

- Munoz v.

Lync h

, 816 F.3d 1226 , 1230 (9th Cir. 2016) (“ Where Petitioners have not shown

they are any more likely to be victims of violence and crimes than the populace as a

whole in Mexico, they have failed to carry their [CAT] burden. ”).

PETITION DENIED.