N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EVER A RDO C AM AC H O-C ASTR O, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-72979 Age n c y No. A092-787-671
M EM OR 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 Subm itte d M arc h 6, 2023 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, W ATFORD, a

nd C OLLINS, C irc uit Judge s.

To be gran t e d a

de fe rra l of re m ova l unde r the C o nve n tion Aga inst Torture (C AT), a n a pplic ant m

ust show tha

t “ it is m ore like ly

tha n not tha t he or she would 

# FIL ED MAR 10 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).be torture d if re m ove d to the propose d c ountry of re m ova l .” 8 C .F.R
.

§ 1208.16(c )(2). He re , the i m m igration judge(IJ) found tha t C am a c h o-C a stro ha d not prove d tha

t he wa s m ore like ly

tha n not to betorture d if he we re re m o ve d to M e x ic o. “ W e re vie w only the B IA’ s de c ision e x c e p t to the e xte n t the de c ision
a dopts or re lie s on the IJ’ s re a soning, in which c a se we re vie w both theIJ’ s a nd the B IA’ s de c isions.” Alanniz v . Barr , 924 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th C ir. 2019). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the IJ’ s fa c tua l findings, so the fa c ts of the
c a se do not c om

pe l us to re ve rse the IJ’ s de c ision. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ); Parussimov

a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 738 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ [W ] e m a y re ve rse only if the e vide nc e in the re c ord c om pe ls a c ontra ry re sult.” ). To prove tha

t it is
m ore like ly

tha n not tha t the pe titione r will be torture d if re m o ve d, the pe titione r
m ust providem ore tha

n “ ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e of viole nc e an d c rim e ,” but
e vide nc e of a

risk tha t is “ pa rtic ula r” to the pe titione r. De lgado-Ortiz v. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010). Although C am a c ho-C a stro a rgue s tha t his a c c e nt, de m e anor, dre ss, a nd othe r signs tha t he live d a

way from M e xic o, or in theUnite d State s spe c ific a l ly , for a tim e m ak e s him

a like ly ta rge t for kidna

pping, torture , e x tortion, a nd othe r harm s if he is re turne d to M e xic o, C am a c ho-C a stro’ s fe a rs a re , a s the IJ found, a

spe c ulative

“ se rie s of worst-c a se sc e na rios.” Blandino-Me dina v . Holde r , 712 F.3d 1338, 1348

2(9th C ir. 2013). Although the IJ note d tha

t C am a c ho-C a stro ha d pre se nte d som e
e vide nc e of “ c rim e dire c te d at re c e nt de p orte e s,” the a ge nc y pe rm issibly

c onc lude d that the ove ra ll risk tha

t re sponde nt would pe rsona lly be subje c te d to torturewa s too “ spe c ulative ” an d tha

t C am a c h o-C a stro ha d the re fore fa ile d to c arry his burde n to show tha

t he wa s e ntitle d to C AT re lie f. C a m a c ho-C a s tro offe rs no e v ide nc e that he spe c ific a lly

is m ore like ly

to be ta rge te d tha n m o st othe rs who c am e to M e x ic o a fte r spe nding a long tim e in the Unite d State s. B e c a use substa

n tia l
e vide nc e supports the

IJ’ s c o nc lusion tha

t C am a c ho-C a stro did not provide suffic i e nt e vide nc e tha

t he would be torture d if re turne d to M e xic o, we m ust de ny C am a c ho-C a stro’ s pe tition for re vie w.

PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3