N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N
UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

FR ANC ISC O AYALA-VALENC IA,
Pe t i tione r,

v.
M ER R IC K B

. GAR LAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l,
R e sponde nt. No. 23-261 Age n c y No. A216-639-713

M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the Im m igra tion C ourt

Subm itte d June 5, 2024 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia
B e fore : M

. SM ITH a nd B A DE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FITZW ATER , * * * Distric t Judge

. 

# FIL ED

JUN 7 2024
M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for publ i cat io n an d 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 un an i m o u s l y co n cl ud es t h i s cas e i s s ui tab l e f o r d eci s i o n without ora l a

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

*** The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa t e r, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t J udge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.Pe titione r F r an cisc o Ay a la -Va le nc ia (“ Ay a la -Va le nc ia ” ), a na tive a nd c itiz e n

of M e xic o, se e ks re vie w of the Im m igra t ion Judge ’ s (“ IJ’ s” ) orde r a ffirm ing a n

a sy lum offic e r’ s ne ga tive re a son ab le fe a r de te rm ina tion. Se e A n drade -Garc ia v
. Ly nc h , 828 F.3d 8 2 9 , 8 3 1 (9th C ir. 2016). W e ha v e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C

. § 1252(a ), a nd we de n y the pe tition. B e c a use the pa

rtie s a re fa m ilia

r wi t h the fa c ts,

we do not re c ount the m

he re , e xc e pt a s ne c e ssa

ry to provide c onte xt to our ruling.
W e re vie w a n IJ’ s re a sona ble fe a r de te rm ina t ion for s ub s tan tia l e vide nc e a n d

“ m ust u phold the IJ’ s c onc lusion

. . . unle ss, ba se d on the e vide nc e , ‘an y r eas o n a ble

a djudic a tor would be c om p e lle d to c onc lude [] the c ontra ry .’ ” Id. a t 833 (quoting Ai
J un Zhi v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014)).
1. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supp o r t s the IJ’ s c onc l usion tha t Ay a la -Va l e nc ia ha s
not shown e ligibility

for prote c tion unde r t he C onve ntion A ga inst Torture (“ C AT” ).
To de m onstra

te a re a sona

ble p ossibility of torture , Ay a la -Va le nc ia m ust show tha t
t h er e is “ a t le a st a te n p e rc e nt c ha nc e ” tha t u

pon re turning to M e xic o he w i l l b e
torture d “ with the c onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of a p ublic offic ial

. ” Alv arado-He rre ra

v
. Garland

, 993 F.3d 1 187, 1 195–96 (9th C ir. 2 021). Assum ing tha t Ay a la -Va le nc ia
ha s e sta blishe d a re a sona

ble possibility of torture , his c re di b l e t es t im ony a nd othe r

e vide nc e doe s n ot e sta

b l ish a re a sona

ble possibilit

y t h a t M e x ic a n a

uthoritie s would
inflic t, c onse nt to, or a c quie s c e to his torture

. Ay a l a -Va le nc ia te stifie d tha t he did not

2know the ide ntity of the m e n w ho a tta c ke d h im , unde rc utting a ny i nfe re nc e tha t sta te

a c tors inflic te d the ha

rm he e xpe rie nc e d. He a lso te s tifie d tha t h e ne ve r re porte d or trie d to re port the ha

rm he e xpe rie nc e d, a nd M e xic a n a uthoritie s ignore d his a tte m p ts.
In fa c t, he indic a te d t

ha t M e xic a n a

uthoritie s’ p re se nc e a nd inquiry onc e pre ve nte d
unide n tifie d m e n from

kidna pping him

. Ay a la -Val en ci a a lso t e stifie d tha t he “ [did not] know wha t [wa s] going on in
M e x ic o right now” a nd c ould not provide a ny spe c ific e xa m p le s o f Mex ic a n

a uthoritie s a c quie sc ing to ga ng-re la te d c rim e s; he only va gue ly a sse rte d tha t “ [he ] j ust he a r[d] things” “ [f] ro m people

— e ve ry one knows.” W hile Ay a la -Va l e nc ia subm its
ge ne ra l c ountry c onditions e vide nc e tha t indic a te s s om e c orruption of lo cal public
offic ia ls in M e xic o , this e vide nc e a lone doe s not co m p el t he c onc lusion t

ha t Ay a la

Va le nc ia e sta

blishe d a c quie s c e nc e suffic ie nt to sa tisfy t h e r easona ble fe a r s ta

nda rd.
Se e B.R. v
. Garland

, 2 6 F.4th 827, 845 (9th C ir. 2022). A re a sona ble fa c tfinde r c ould
find tha t Ay a la -Va le nc ia ’ s c re dible t e stim ony a n d o the r e vide nc e did not e sta blish tha t public offic ia ls ha d turne d a blind e y e to a ny tort u r o u s activity he suffe re d, or tha t the y will inflic t, c onse nt t o , or a c quie sc e to his t orture in the future

. Se e Don v
. Gonzale s , 476 F.3d 738, 745 (9th C i r. 2007) (“ Although a re a sona ble fa c tfinde r c ould
ha ve found Pe titione r c re dible , no suc h finding is c om pe lle d by the e vide nc e .” (e m pha se s om itte d)).

3The te m pora ry sta y of re m ova l re m a ins i n pla c e until the m a n da te issue s. The

m otion for a

sta y of re m ova l is othe rwise de nie d.
PE T IT IO N DE NIE D

.

4