NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUGO ARNOLDO AGUILAR

SANDOVAL, Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 71712 Agency No. A098

- 264

- 020

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 15, 2020 * * San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, BADE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Hugo Arnoldo Aguilar

- Sandoval , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) affirming the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his claim for deferral of removal pursuant to the Convention Against To rture (CAT). We have

* 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). 

# FILED

SEP 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252 , re view the BIA ’s denial of deferral of removal
for substantial evidence , s ee Arbid v. Holder , 700 F.3d 379, 385

- 86 (9th Cir. 2012) , and deny the petition

. The BIA determined that Aguilar

- Sandoval did not meet his burden of proving “that it is more likely than not that he

. . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2 )

. S ubstantial evidence supports the BIA ’s conclusion that Aguilar

- Sandoval failed to demonstrate that anyone in Mexico will, more likely than not, torture him with the government’s consent or acquiescence

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) ; Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014)

. First, the record su pports the BIA ’s conclusion that Aguilar

- Sandoval failed
to adduce specific , non - speculative evidence establishing that the Sinaloa cartel is
interested in torturing him. Second, the record supports the BIA ’s conclusion that
even if the Sinaloa cartel is interested in torturing him, Aguilar

- Sandoval could reasonably relocate within Mexico to avoid any potential future threat of torture

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii) (stating that evidence of ability to relocate is
relevant in determin ing eligibility for CAT relief)

. A fter a prior removal from the
United States , Aguilar

- Sandoval resided in a Mexico border city for months
without harm or threat

. Third, even if the record showed that the Sinaloa cartel is interested in3

torturing him and that he could not reasonably relocate within Mexico , Aguilar

Sandoval failed to identify specific evidence that the Mexican government would acquiesce in his torture. The country conditions evidence submitted by Aguilar

Sandoval does not compel a contrary re sult on this point

. Although th at evidence
suggests that Mexico suffers from witness protection and public safety challenges , Aguilar

- Sandoval cannot use generalized evidence to meet his burden of demonstrating a particularized threat of tortu re. See Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) ( holding that “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico” was insufficient to establish CAT eligibility); Almaghzar v.
Gonzales , 457 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that although “ reports confirm[ed] that torture takes place” in the petitioner’s hom e country , they did not compel the conclusion that the petitioner would face a particularized threa t )

. PETITION DENIED. 1

1 Aguilar

- Sandoval asks that we send his case to mediation. In its brief, the government represented that it forwarded Aguilar

- Sandoval ’s request to mediate to the Department of Homeland Security, which declined. We deny Aguilar

Sandoval ’s request to send this matter to mediation

.