N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ADOLFO ALEGUNDO C OR TESAM B R OSIO,

Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-70081 Age n c y No. A205-065-127
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 Subm itte d

June 17, 2022 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE, C ALLAHAN, a nd C OLLINS, C irc uit Judge s. Adolfo C orte s -Am

brosio, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions this c ourt for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de nia l of his m o tion to



# FIL ED JUL 13 2022 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re ope n

his re m ova l proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252, a nd
we de ny the pe tition. W e re vie w de nia ls of m otions to re ope n for an a buse of disc re tion. He rnande z-Ortiz v
. Garland

, 32 F.4th 794, 800 (9th C i r. 2022). The B IA c an de ny a m otion to re ope n on “ at le a st” thre e inde p e nde nt grounds: (1) “ fa i lure to e sta blish
a prim a fa c ie c a se for the re l i e f sought” ; (2) “ fa ilure to introduc e pre v iously
una va ila ble , m ate ria l e vide nc e ” ; a nd (3) fa ilure to show tha t the m ova

nt would be
e ntitle d to thedisc re t iona ry grant of re lie f sought. N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting IN S v . Dohe rty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)). The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing C orte s-Am brosio’ s m otion to re ope n be c a

use his ne w e vide nc e fa ile d to e sta blish prima

fa c ie e l igibility

for the
re lie f sought. W ith re spe c t to his a sy lum an d withholding c la im s, C orte s Am brosio’ s e vide nc e doe s not e sta blish a ne xus be twe e n his a lle g e d future pe rse c ution a

nd his soc ia l group—

his “ fam ily

kinship/tie s a

n d . . . his fa

m ily ’ s la ndowne rship.” He de sc ribe s two insta nc e s— one in 2000 a

nd one in 2018—

in whic h his brothers we re thre ate ne d by orga niz e d c rim ina l s, but there c ord doe s not show tha t the ir fam i ly

tie s we re “ a

re a son” tha

t the y we re thre ate ne d. Se e Santos-Ponc e v . W

ilk inson , 987 F.3d 886, 890–91 (9th C ir. 2021). Furthe r, while C orte s -Am

brosio’ s upda

te d c ountry

c onditions ev i de nc e points to a n inc re a se in
2viole nc e and c arte l a c tivity , it de sc ribe s a ge ne ra liz e d risk of ha

rm rathe r tha

n a risk spe c ific to pe o p le with c e rta in fa m ily tie s or fam ilia l la

n d owne rship. Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1015–16 (9th C i r. 2010) (“ An a lie n’ s de s ire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by c rim ina ls m otiva te d by the ft or ra

ndom viole n c e by

ga ng m e m b e rs be ars no ne xus to a

prote c te d ground.” ). W ith re spe c t to his c la im unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture , C orte s-Am brosio fa ile d to show prima fa c ie
e ligibility for re l ie f be c a

u s e suc h ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e is insuffic ie nt to show

“ m ore like ly tha

n not” that he would betorture d with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the M e xic an gove rnm e nt. Se e De lgado-Ortiz v
. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010). 1 PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

1 C orte s-Am

brosio a lso a

rgue s tha t the B IA fa ile d to a de quate ly c onside r the e vide nc e in support of his m otion to re ope n. Howe ve r, this a rgum e nt is c onc lusory , a

nd he fa ils to point to a

ny indic ation tha

t the B IA did not c onside r a ll of the e vide nc e be fore it. Se e C ole v . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 771–72 (9th C ir. 2011). 3