N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALB ER TO B A RR IENTOS-LOPEZ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-73253 Age n c y No. A200-151-397
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 Fe brua

ry 4, 2020 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M . SM ITH, N.R . SM ITH, a nd B R ESS, C irc uit Judge s. Albe rto B arrie ntos-Lope z pe titions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l. The Im

m igration Judge(“ IJ” ) de nie d his a

pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re l ie f unde r the 

# FIL ED FEB 11 2020 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).C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). 1 B e c a use the B IA a dopte d

the IJ’ s de c ision while a dding its own re a sons, we re vie w both de c isions. N u ru v . Gonzale

s , 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. 1. De spite the de fe c t s in the Notic e to Appe a r, the IJ ha d jurisdic tion to
c onduc t re m ova l proc e e dings a s se t forth in 8 C .F.R . § 1003.14(a). Se e K a ringithi
v . W hitak e r , 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-61 (9th C i r. 2019) (holding tha t “ a notic e to
a ppe ar that doe s not spe c ify the tim e and pla c e of a n a l ie n’ s initia l re m ova l he aring
ve sts a n [IJ] with jurisdic tion ove r the re m ova l proc e e dings so long a s a notic e of he aring spe c ify ing this information is la te r se nt to thea l ie n” (a lte ra tion omi tte d) (quoting Matte r of Be rmude z-C ota , 27 I. & N. De c . 441, 447 (B IA 2018)). Afte r the i nitia l Notic e to Appe ar, B arrie ntos-Lope z wa s provide d subse que nt notic e of the t im e and pla c e of the he a rings, a nd he a ppe are d at the sc he dule d he arings. Se e id. at 1161-62. Ac c ordingly , we a lso ha ve jurisdic tion ove r this a ppe a l. 2. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t B arrie ntos-Lope z fa ile d to e sta

blish a ne xus be t

we e n a ny ha rm he m ay suffe r and a

prote c te d ground, be c a use his thre e propose d soc i a l groups—“ M e xic ans with m e nta l disa bilitie s,”

“ M e xic a ns with sc hiz ophre n ia

who do not ha

ve a c c e ss to a de quate m e nta l he a lth

1 B arrie ntos-Lope z did not c ha lle nge the de nia l of c anc e lla tion of re m ova l in his ope ning brie f. Thus, it is wa ive d. Martine

z-Se rrano v . IN

S, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th C ir. 1996). 2se rvic e s,” or “ M e xic a ns with m e nta l illne ss whose m e nta l he a lth c a use s the m to be have e rratic a lly ”

— we re not c ogniz a ble
. 2 Se eRe

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th C ir. 2016). Although B arrie ntos-Lope z subm itte d e vide n c e of how Latinos in the

Unite d State s an d Latin Am e ric a pe rc e ive pe rsons with m e nta l illne ss, nothing in the

re c ord or in theB IA’ s de c ision de m onstra te s tha t the B IA
m isc h ara c te riz e d or m isinte rpre te d the subm itte d e vide nc e . Furthe r, the e v ide nc e doe s not c om

pe l a c onc lusion tha

t M e xic an soc ie ty

pe rc e ive s pe rsons with m e nta l illne ss a s a

distinc t group. Se eid. at 1137-38. Ac c ordingly , be c a

use B a rrie ntos-Lope z ha s fa ile d to e s ta blish a c ogniz a ble
soc i a l group, he ha s not m e t his burde n of e sta blishing e ligibility

for a s y l um

or withholding of rem o v a l. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). 3. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de c ision tha

t it is not m

ore like ly tha n not tha t B arrie n tos-Lope z will be subje c t e d to torturein M e x ic o, or tha t a ny torture would be at the ha nds of or a c q

uie sc e nc e of the M e xic a

n gove rnm e n t. B arrie ntos-Lope z subm itte d the Disa bility R i ghts Inte rnationa l re port,

2 W ith re ga

rd to the first two propose d soc ia l groups, B arrie ntos-Lope z fa ils to c h a lle nge the B IA’ s c onc l usions for re je c ting thesoc ia l group, a rguing inste a d that the B IA m i sinte rpre te d the e vide nc e . Ac c ordingly , B arrie n tos-Lope z wa ive d any c ha lle nge to the se findings. Martine z -Se rrano , 94 F.3d a

t 1260. 3doc um e nting them a ltre atm e nt of pe rsons institutiona l iz e d in M e xic an m e nta l he a lth fa c ilitie s. Howe ve r, this e vide nc e , by itse lf, doe s not c om

pe l a c o nc lusion that he will be torture d. Se e C o lev . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 773-74 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ Ac ts tha

t m e re ly have the fore se e a

ble re s ult of inflic ting ha

rm are not suffic ie nt;

‘ t he a c tor [m

ust] inte n d the a c tua l c onse q ue nc e s of his c onduc t.’ ” (quoting V ille gas
v . Muk ase y , 523 F.3d 984, 989 (9th C ir. 2008))). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

4