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

OSC AR ALB E R TO ALONSOC ASTENADA,

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. 21-231 Age n c y No. A200-626-073
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 14, 2023 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB E E a nd C HR ISTEN , C i rc u it Judge s, a nd FITZW ATER , * * * Distric t Judge

. 

# F IL ED
JUN 26 2023
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r op r i at e for public a tion 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.

* * T h e p an el u n an i m o u sl y co n cl u d es t h i s cas e i s s u i tab l e for de c isio 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 Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.Osc a r A lbe rto A lonso-C a ste na da (“ Alonso-C a ste na da ” ), a c itiz e n o f M e xic o,

pe titions for rev i ew of a de c ision by the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de ny ing his m o tion to re ope n pursua nt to 8 C .F.R
. § 100 3
. 2 ( c)(3)(ii). W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1 2 52. Se e K uc ana v . Holde r , 558 U.S. 233, 2 53 (2010). R e vie wing the a ge n c y ’ s fa c tua l de te rm ina tions for s ubsta ntia l e vide nc e a nd l eg a l que stions de novo, se e N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 5 97 F.3d 9 83, 9 8 6 (9th C ir. 2 010) (c iting Bhasin v . Gonzale

s , 423 F.3d 977, 983 (9th C ir. 2005)), we de n y the pe tition. 1. The B IA prope rly c onc lude d tha t Alonso-C a ste na da fa ile d to e sta blish prim a fac i e c a se s of e ligibility for a sy lum a nd withholding of re m ova l be c a use he fa ile d to
e sta blish m e m

be rship in a c o gniz a

ble soc ia l group. “ An a sy lum o r w i t h holding

a pplic a nt’ s burde n inc l ude s (1) d e m onstra ting the e xiste nc e of a c ogniz a ble pa rtic ula r
soc i a l group, (2) his m e m be rship in tha t pa

rtic ula r soc ia l g roup, a

n d (3) a risk of pe rse c ution on account of his m e m be rship in t

he spe c ifie d pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group.” Re y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th C ir. 2016) (inte rna l q uota ti o n m a rks

om i tte d). “ [I] t is now we ll-e s ta blishe d t h at an a

p plic a nt se e k i ng re lie f ba se d o n
m e m b e rship in a pa rtic ula

r soc ia l group m

u st e sta blish tha t the group is: ‘ (1)

c om pose d of m e m

be rs who sha

re a c om m o n im m u ta bl e ch ara c te ristic , (2) de fine d with pa rtic ula rity , an d ( 3) soc ia lly distinc t within the s oc ie ty i n que stion.’ ” Diaz-Re y noso v . Barr , 968 F.3d 1070, 1077 (9th C ir. 2 020) (quoting Matte r of

2M

- E

- V

- G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227, 2 37 (B IA 2014)). “ Unde r t he B IA’ s e sta

b l i sh ed sta nda rds, s oc i a l g r o u ps m

u st be de te rm ine d on a c a se -by -c a se ba sis.” Id. a t 1080 (quota tions a nd c ita

tions om itte d). Although Alonso-C a ste na d a a sse rts m e m be rship in soc i a l groups c onsisting of individua ls with pa st c rim i na l history or individua ls who te stify a ga inst s m

u ggle rs, the B IA prope rly c onc lude d t ha t Alonso-C a ste na da fa ile d to m e e t h is burde n of e sta blishing m e m

b e rship in a c ogniz a

ble soc ia l group, a nd thus ha s fa ile d to e sta

blish p rim a fa c ie c a se s of e ligibility for a sy lum a n d withholding of

re m ova l. 2. The BI A p r o p e rly c onc l ude d tha t A lonso-C a ste na da fa ile d to e sta blish a prim a fa c ie c a se of e ligibility for prote c t ion unde r the C AT. T o qua lify for prote c tion unde r the C AT, “ [t] he burde n of p r o o f i s o n the a pplic a nt
. . . to e s ta

blish tha t it is

m ore like ly tha

n n ot tha t he or she would be torture d if re m ove d t o t h e p r opose d

c ountry of re m o va l.” 8 C .F.R
. § 208.16(c )(2) (2022). “ To q ua lify a s torture , a c tions

m ust be ‘ inflic te d by or a t the instiga tion of or with the c onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of a public offic ia l or othe r p e rson a c ting in a n offic i a l c a pa c ity .’ ” N

asrallah v . B arr , 140 S.C t. 1683, 1688 n.1 (2020) (quoting 8 C.F.R
. § 1 208.18(a )(1) (2019)). Although

“ c o untry c onditions a lone c a n ‘ pla y a de c isive role in gra

nting re lie f unde r [C AT] ,’ ” N uru v . Gonzale

s , 40 4 F
. 3 d 1207, 1219 (9th C ir. 2005) (a lte ra tion in origina l) (quoting K

amalthas v . I.N

.S. , 251 F.3d 1279, 1280 (9th C ir. 2001)), “ ge ne ra liz e d

3e vide nc e of v iole n c e a n d c rim e ” in the c ountry of re m ova l tha t is not pa rtic ula r to the pe titione r i s an i nsuffic ie nt ba s is for gra nting suc h re lie f. De lgado-Ortiz v . Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uria m ). Although Alonso-C a s te n ad a m a inta ins “ t ha t the re ha s be e n a

n inc re a sing ra te of hom i c ide s in M e xic o sinc e he wa s la st be fore the Im m igra tion C ourt, a

nd tha t the M e x ic a n gove rnm e nt h a s de m onstra te d a n u nwillingne ss or ina b i l i t y to a d e qua te l y prote c t its c itiz e ns,” he ha s provide d only ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e o f a n i n cr ease of viole nc e a nd c rim e i n M e xic o, a nd ha s pre se n te d n o e vide nc e pa rtic ula r to h im se lf by whic h the B IA c ould c o n c lude d tha t h e m ore like ly tha n not will fa c e torture inflic te d by or with the c onse n t of the M e xic a n gove rnm e nt. T he re fore , the B IA prope rly

c onc lude d tha t Alonso-C a ste na da fa ile d to e sta blish e ligibility for p rote c tion unde r the C AT. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

4