NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CELIA MARIA SANTANA ALVARENGA,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 21

- 70412 Agency No. A041

- 690

- 583

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 12, 2022 San Francisco, California Before: CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and REISS, * * District Judge.
Petitioner Celia Maria Santana Alvarenga seeks deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), asserting that if removed to Mexico she will more likely than not be placed in a drug rehabilitation facility and subject to

torture . She also contends that prior cr iminal affiliates or the police will target and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Christina Reiss, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 5 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

torture her based on her prior drug trafficking activity and subsequent conviction

. An I mmigration Judge (“IJ”) found that Petitioner failed to establish it was more likely than not she would be tortured in Mexico and ordered her remov al . T he Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) agreed. We review the denial of CAT relief for substantial evidence, Quijada

- Aguilar v. Lynch , 799 F.3d 1303 , 1305 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted), and deny the petition.
1. Pe titioner’s argument that , if returned to Mexico, she will relapse and subsequently be placed in a rehabilitation facility where she will be tortured is too speculative to “compel[ ] a contrary conclusion from that adopted by the BIA.”
Parada v. Sessions , 902 F.3d 901, 909 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ; see also Garcia v. Wilkinson , 988 F.3d 1136, 1148 (9th Cir.
2021 ) (“ [S] peculative fear of torture is not sufficient to satisfy the applicant ’ s
burden [under CAT]

. ”).
2. Petitioner’s fear that she will be tortured by the police or cartel
members in Mexico also does not rise above the speculative level, as she has failed
to establish that either group has a contin uing interest in her. See Duran

- Rodriguez

v. Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1029

- 30 (9th Cir. 2019) (affirming denial of CAT relief where petitioner received death threa ts in the past from a cartel member but the
record evidence did not establish a continued interest in the petitioner).3

3. The IJ did not improperly discount the opinion s of Dr. Garcia,
Petitioner’s expert witness , but merely observed this witness’s testimony must be
considered “ in conjunction with all other objective evidence to determine if the [Petitioner] has met her burden under the legal standards for CAT protection.” T he

IJ further “thoroughly read and review ed the country condition[s] evidence” submitted by Petitioner, “especially as it pertains to the treatment of those suffering
from mental health disorders in Mexico

. ” S ee Gonzalez

- Caraveo v. Sessions , 882 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The IJ did not fai l to consider country conditions.
The IJ’s statement that there was evidence in the record that showed the Mexican government was at times complicit in cartel work shows that the IJ did review the record, he was just not persuaded by it.”) (internal citati on omitted).
4. Finally, t he BIA declined to reach Petitioner ’s argument that she w ill be tortured with the acquiescence of a public official , and t his court’s analysis is
limited to issues addressed by the BIA. See J.R. v. Barr , 975 F.3d 778 , 785 (9th Cir. 2020) (concluding that where the BIA did not reach certain issues, this court
“cannot

. . . decide those questions in the first instance”). The petition is DENIED and the motion for a stay of removal , Dkt. No. 1, is
DENIED AS MOOT

. The tempora ry stay of removal will remain intact until the
mandate issues.