NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CESAR IVAN GUERRERO ELIZONDO,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 23-243

Agency No.

A205-053-756

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2024**

Portland, Oregon

Before: OWENS and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and RAYES, District 

Judge.

***

Cesar Ivan Guerrero Elizondo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order of removal, which 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the 

District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

FILED

APR 10 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-243

affirmed without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Guerrero 

Elizondo’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 

the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the parties are familiar with the 

facts, we do not recount them here except as necessary for context. “Where, as 

here, the BIA affirms the decision of the IJ without opinion, we review the IJ’s 

decision as the final agency decision.” Donchev v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1206, 1212 

(9th Cir. 2009). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and (a)(2)(D), 

and we deny the petition. 

1. Even assuming Guerrero Elizondo could overcome the IJ’s adverse 

credibility finding, the untimeliness of his asylum application, and the lack of 

nexus determination, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail because 

the IJ determined that he could reasonably relocate to another part of Mexico, and 

Guerrero Elizondo has not challenged that determination. See Akosung v. Barr, 

970 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that asylum and withholding of 

removal are unavailable if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating 

within the country and it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so). 

Even if he had challenged that determination, it is supported by substantial 

evidence.

2. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Guerrero Elizondo 

did not establish for purposes of his CAT claim that it is more likely than not that 
3 23-243

he would be subject to torture with the consent, acquiescence, or willful blindness 

of the Mexican government if removed to Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 

600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“[G]eneralized evidence of 

violence and crime in Mexico is . . . insufficient to meet [the CAT] standard.”); 8 

C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). Guerrero Elizondo points to no evidence in the record 

compelling a contrary conclusion.

3. Guerrero Elizondo contends the IJ violated his procedural due process by 

failing to provide meaningful reasoning and application of facts to the law, 

diminishing his testimony, skewing the facts of the case, and mischaracterizing the 

record. We disagree. See Getachew v. INS, 25 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir. 1994) 

(holding that due process challenges in deportation proceedings require showing of 

error and prejudice). Guerrero Elizondo received a meaningful opportunity to be 

heard, and the IJ provided extensive reasoning in deciding the case. See Zetino v. 

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that there was no due process 

violation because proceedings were not so fundamentally unfair that petitioner was 

prevented from reasonably presenting his case). Guerrero Elizondo also does not 

make a clear showing of prejudice. Even if the IJ had given his testimony full

credence, substantial evidence supports that Guerrero Elizondo does not qualify for 

asylum relief, mandatory withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT. 

See Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 728 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that to prevail on 
4 23-243

due process challenge, petitioner must show that violation of his rights likely 

would have impacted the outcome of the removal proceeding).

PETITION DENIED.