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 GUADALUPE B URB OAR OC HA, AKA Fra

nc i sc o B urboa -R oc ha , Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-73005 Age n c y No. A095-776-843
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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 8, 2018 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd GAR B IS, ** Distric t Judge
. Franc isc o B urboa -R oc ha pe t itions for re vie w of a

n orde r of the B o ard of Im m i gration Appe a l s (B IA) dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s 

# FIL ED JUN 05 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 Honora

ble M arvin J. Ga

rbis, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M ary la

nd, sitting by

de s igna tion.de c ision de ny ing B urboa -R oc ha ’ s a pplic ations for c a

nc e lla tion of re m ova l, a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture (C AT). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w fa c tua l findings unde r the de fe re ntia l substa ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd. Ai J un Zhi v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014). W e re vie w de novo theB IA’ s inte rpre t ation of B urboa -R oc ha ’ s sta

t ute of c onvic tion. Latte r-Singh v . Holde r , 668 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th C ir. 2012). Howe ve r, we a fford de fe re nc e to the B IA’ s c onc lusion
re ga rding whe the r the sta

tute of c onvic tion c ate goric a lly c rim ina liz e s turpitudinous
c onduc t. Id. at

1159-60. B e c a

use the B IA’ s de c ision in this c a se is ne ithe r pre c e de ntia l nor ba se d on c ontrolling pre c e de nt, we “ de fe r to the B IA’ s de te rm i nation only

to the e xte nt tha

t it ha s the powe r to pe rsua de (i.e ., S k i dmore de fe re nc e ).” Id. at 1160. 1. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t B urboa -R oc ha

is ine l igible for a sy lum

or withholding of re

m ova l be c a

use B urboa -R oc ha

did not
e sta blish a ne xus be twe e n the ha rm he suffe re d or fe ars a

nd a prote c te d ground in

2the Im

m igration a

nd Na t iona lity Ac t (INA). 1 Se e Ze tino v
. Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th C ir. 2010). Eve n a ssum ing tha t B urboa -R oc ha ’ s fam ily is c ogniz a ble
a s a “ soc ia l group” unde r the INA, the re is no e vide nc e tha t he wa s or would be ta rge te d ba se d on his fa

m ily m e m be rship. B urboa -R oc ha

a d m itte d tha t he did not know his a s sa ila

n ts, a nd the y did not indic ate why

the y atta c ke d him . Nor did he put forth a

ny e v ide n c e a

bout why his m othe r re c e ive d thre ate ning phonec a lls or why his c ousin wa s kille d. 2. The B IA re a sona

bly de te rm ine d tha

t a c o nvic tion for m e na c ing in viola tion of Ore gon R e vise d Statute § 163.190 is c ate goric a l ly a c rim e involving
m ora l turpitude . Se c tion 163.190 re quire s the inte n t iona l atte m pt to pla c e anothe r pe rson in fe ar of im

m ine nt se rious phy sic a l injury
. State v . Ande r son , 641 P.2d 40, 41 (Or. C t. App. 1982). The B IA ha s e xpla ine d tha

t “ [a ] m o ng the te sts to de te rm i ne if a

c rim e involve s m ora l turpitudeis whe the r the a c t is a c c o m pa nie d by
a vic ious m otive or a c orrupt m ind.” Matte r of Ajami , 22 I. & N. De c . 949, 950 (B IA 1999). W e have uphe ld the B IA’ s e m pha sis on “ e vil or m a lic ious inte nt” a s

“ the e sse nc e of m ora l turpitude .” Latte r-Singh , 668 F.3d a t 1161 (quoting In re Flore s , 17 I. & N. De c . 225, 227 (B IA 1980)). Ac c ordingly , we de fe r to the B IA’ s

1 On this a

ppe a l, B urboa -R oc ha

ha s not a d

va nc e d a ny argum e nts in support of his c la im

for re lie f unde r C AT. W e the re fore de c line to re a c h the issue
. Se e Husy e v v . Muk ase y , 528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th C ir. 2008). 3c onc lusion tha t m e na c i ng re quire s spe c i fic inte nt, whic h re fle c ts a vic ious m otive , and tha t the a c t of inte ntiona lly atte m pting to plac e the vic tim

in im m ine nt fe ar of
se rious phy sic a l injury m ak e s m e na c ing re pre he nsible
. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

4