NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUDY ALEXANDER VILLEDA MEJIA, 

AKA Rudy Villeda-Mejia, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-72341 

Agency No. A088-367-378 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 6, 2022**

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG,*** District 

Judge.

* 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).

*** The Honorable Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge for 

the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUL 8 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Petitioner Rudy Alexander Villeda Mejia (“Villeda”) is a native of Honduras 

who is subject to a reinstated removal order. He appeals from a decision of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of 

his application for withholding of removal and his alternative request for protection 

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Villeda sought withholding of removal, arguing he is a member of the 

protected social group “witnesses of crimes in Honduras.” In 2009, Villeda was 

working at a cell phone repair shop. While repairing a phone, he accidentally saw 

and inadvertently deleted videos on four cell phones which showed the customers, 

who identified themselves as members of the Cachiros drug cartel, dressed up as 

military or police officers, and it appeared that they were killing people. The BIA’s

decision denying relief is supported by substantial evidence. The broad social group 

proposed by Villeda does not have the sufficient “social distinction” and 

“particularity” to constitute a cognizable social group under the act. Conde Quevedo 

v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242‒43 (9th Cir. 2020). Moreover, Villeda did not report 

the crime or publicly testify against the gang; indeed, he did not even witness the 

crime firsthand. See Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2021) 

(“[Petitioner’s] proposed group ‘witnesses who . . . could testify against gang 

members based upon what they witnessed,’ encompasses ‘anyone in Honduras who 

is a potential witness to anything that can be characterized as crime committed by a 
3 

gang member.’ As such, the proposed group is not ‘discrete’ and lacks ‘definable 

boundaries.’”).

 Nor does evidence compel the conclusion that Villeda will more likely than 

not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Honduran government, as 

required for CAT protection. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18. Villeda testified that he believed 

the cartel members were also government agents because they were dressed in 

military or police clothing in the videos he viewed. However, the agency is not 

required to accept Villeda’s belief as fact, see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 866 (9th 

Cir. 2001), and there was no objective evidence that the self-identified cartel 

members were actually associated with the government. With no indication that 

anyone has sought him or has interest in him since the events many years ago, 

Villeda’s case is based on a chain of assumptions and speculation instead of evidence 

demonstrating a likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of the 

government. See Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 706–07 (9th Cir. 

2022).

PETITION DENIED.