NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCO ANTONIO PINDTER

- BONILLA,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 70079 Agency No. A205

- 299

- 907

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 13, 2018 Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and TEILBORG, ** District Judge. Marco Antonio Pindter

- Bonilla , a native of Mexico and citizen of both Mexico and Nicaragua, appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeal s ’ ( “ BIA ” ) dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s ( “ IJ ” ) decision denying his

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

- 3.

** The Honorable James A. Teilborg, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

APR 25 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

applications for withholding of removal and protection under th e Convention Against Torture ( “ CAT ” ). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny Pindter

- Bonilla’s petition for review. As to withholding of removal based on past persecution in Mexico, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusio n that Pindter

- Bonilla’s kidnappers were not motivated by his status as a Central American migrant. See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Instead, the kidnappers’ phone call to Pindter

Bonilla’s family member indicates the kidnappers ’ motives were rooted in financial gain. A lthough the IJ and BIA did not apply the “a reason” standard articulated in Barajas

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017), this error does not require remand because the IJ and BIA concluded that a pr otected ground was not a reason at all

—

versus one of many reasons

— for the past persecution. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Pindter

- Bonilla did not establish a clear probability of future persecution. In particular, Mexico ha s passed comprehensive migrant laws and there was otherwise no evidence Pindter

- Bonilla was at an individualized risk of future persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009). Similarly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Pindter

Bonilla did not establish a clear probability of f uture persecution in Nicaragua. Pindter

- Bonilla fears persecution in Nicaragua based on the possibility others will3

impute his moth er’s anti

- Sandinista government opinions to him. However, Pindter

Bonilla cites no evidence that places him at an individualized risk of future persecution. Moreover, his family members

— who previously fled Nicaragua due to their own anti

- Sandinista polit ical views

— have returned to Nicaragua without harm. 1 See Santos

-

Lemus v. Mukasey , 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that ongoing family safety may mitigate a well

- founded fear of future persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BI A’s denial of CAT relief for both Mexico and Nicaragua because there is no specific evidence that Pindter

- Bonilla will be subject to a “

particularized threat of torture” upon his return to either country. Dhital v. Mukasey , 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2 008). Rathe r, Pindter

Bonilla’s reliance on his membership in disfavored groups is insufficient to warrant CAT relief. Accordingly, the petition is D ENIED

.

1 Pindter

- Bon illa also argues he is a member of a disfavored group comprised of individuals with drug

- related convictions and fears persecution in both Mexico and Nicaragua on this basis. Pindter

- Bonilla did not present this argument to the BIA, and the BIA did not ad dress this theory for relief. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over this claim. See Vargas v. INS , 831 F.2d 906, 907

– 08 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.”).