N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANTONIO M AR T INEZ-M UNOZ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-71912 Age n c y No. A087-968-059
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 August 7, 2019 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , HAW K INS and M c KEOW N, C irc u it Judge s. Antonio M artine z -M unoz , a native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing M a rtine z ’ s
a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing M artine z ’ s a p plic ation 

# FIL ED AUG 28 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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).for withholding of rem ova l a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. Whe re the B IA a dopts theIJ’ s de c ision a nd a lso provide s its own re vie w of the e vide n c e and the la

w , we re vie w both theIJ a nd the B IA’ s de c isions. Se e Ali
v . Holde r , 637 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th C ir. 2011). W e re v ie w de novo que stions of la w. C e re zo v . Muk a s e y , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th C ir. 2008). W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Ze haty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006), a nd we de ny in pa

rt a nd dismi ss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s c onc lusion tha

t M artine z fa ile d to e s ta b lish tha t he would bepe rse c ute d on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C i r. 2010) (a n a p plic ant’ s “ de sire 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” ). Ne i the r M artine z nor his fa m ily have suffe re d viole nc e in M e xic o or re c e ive d thre at s from any o ne in M e xic o. To the e xte nt tha

t M artine z argue s tha

t he would be ta

rge te d upon re turn be c a

use of pe rc e ive d we a l th re late d to his re turn from the Unite d State s, this doe s not
c onstitute m e m be rship in a

c o gniz a ble soc ia l group. Se e Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th C ir. 2016) (e xpla ining c o g niz a bility sta nda rd) (c iting Matte r of M2E-G-V- , 26 I & N De c . 227, 237 (B IA 2014)); se e also Ramire z -Munoz v . Ly nc h , 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ im pute d we a lthy

Am e ric an s” re turning to M e x ic o did not c onstitute a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group). Our c onc l usion is not affe c te d by the diffe ring ne xus sta

nda rds a pplic a ble to a sy l um

and withholding of re

m ova l
c la im s. C f. Barajas-Romero v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th C ir. 2017) (disc ussing Ze tino v . Holde r having dra

wn no distinc tion be twe e n the sta nda rds whe re the re wa s no ne xus a t a ll to a prote c te d ground). Thus, M artine z ’ s withholding of rem o v a l c la im fa ils. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use M artine zfa ile d to show it is m o re like ly tha n not tha t he will be torture d

by or with the c onse nt or a c quie sc e n c e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to M e xic o. Se e Ade n v . Holde r , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th C ir. 2009); se e also Zhe n g v . Holde r , 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th C ir. 2011) (possibility of torture too spe c ulative ). The re c ord
c onta ins no e vide n c e that c om pe ls re ve rsa l of the a g e nc y ’ s c onc lusion tha t M artine zwould betorture d upon re turn to M e x ic o . M artine z ha s not sta

te d a due proc e ss viola

tion in the

a ge nc y ’ s de c ision to de ny him a c ontinua nc e to pursue re lie f unde r the De fe rre d Ac tion for Pa re nts of Am e ric ans (DAPA) progra m . Se e Biw ot v . Gonzale

s , 403 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ Abse n t a

showing of c le ar a

buse , we ty

pic a lly do not disturb a

n IJ’ s
3disc re tiona

ry de c ision not to c ontinuea he aring.” ). B e c a

use the DAPA progra

m wa s ne ve r im

ple m e nte d, a

nd la t e r form a lly

re sc inde d, M artine z c annot de m onstra te pre j udic e . Se e C

ruz Re ndon v . Holde r , 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th C ir. 2010) (to sta te a d ue proc e ss viola

tion a pe titione r m

ust show pre

judic e ). To the e xte nt M artine zargue s tha

t the de nia l of the c ontinua nc e de prive d him

of the opportunity to a p ply for prose c utoria l disc re tion, this a rgum e nt wa s not ra ise d be fore the B IA,
and we la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r it. 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1); Figue roa v . Muk ase y , 543 F.3d 487, 492 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

4