N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AR C ADIO M OLINA-GAR C IA,

Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-70321 Age n c y No. A205-671-859 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 M arc h 15, 2022 ** La s Ve ga s , Ne v a d a B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s, a n d C OGAN, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED MAR 18 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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).

* * * The Honora

ble B rian M . C oga

n, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa t ion.Arc a dio M olina -Garc ia (M olina -Garc ia ), a c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the de nia l of his a pplic a tion for a sy lum . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we de ny

the pe tition.

“ W e re vie w de novo the B IA’ s [B o a rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ ] de te rm i nations on que s tions of la w a nd m ixe d que stions of la

w a nd fa c t,” but “ [w] e re vie w for substa

ntia l e vide nc e the B IA’ s fa c tua l findings.” C ondeQue v e do v . Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 - 4 2 (9th C ir. 2020) (c ita tion omitte d). Unde r substa ntia l e vide nc e re vie w, “ [t] o re ve rse [,] we m ust find tha

t the e vide nc e not only supports that c onc l usion, but c ompe l

s i t.” Zhe ng v . Holde r , 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita

tion a n d a lte ra tions omitte d) (e m pha se s in the origina l). W he n the B IA c onduc ts its own re vie w of the e vide nc e an d the la w , we lim it our re vie w to the B IA de c ision. Se e Hosse ini v . Gonzale s , 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th C ir. 2006), as ame nde d . M olina -Garc ia

c ha lle nge s the de t e rm ination tha t he fa ile d to sa

t isfy the

“ c h ange d c irc um sta

nc e s” e xc e ption to the

one -y e ar de a dline for filing a n a sy lum a pplic a tion, a

nd the de t e rm i nation tha

t he la c ke d a

we ll-founde d

fe ar of pe rse c ution ba s e d on a

prote c te d ground. Se e Tamang v . Holde r , 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th C ir. 2010) (re c ogniz ing the one -y e ar filing de a dline and c ha nge d c irc um s ta nc e s e xc e ption) . 21. The B IA re a c he d the m e rits of M olina -Ga

rc ia ’ s a sy lum

c la im and c onc lude d tha

t he fa ile d to e sta

blish e ligibility

for a sy lum . B e c a

use the B IA de c line d to a ddre ss whe the r M olina -Garc ia ’ s a sy lum a pplic at ion wa s tim e -barre d, we foc us our re vie w on the m e rits of M olina -Ga rc ia ’ s a sy lum c la im . Se e Diaz-Re y noso v . Barr , 968 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th C ir. 2020) (“ Our re vie w is limite d to those grounds e xplic itly re lie d upon by

the B IA. . . .” ) (c ita

tion a nd a lte ra tion om i tte d). 2. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t M o lina Garc ia fa ile d to e sta

blish a ne xus be twe e n a

ny fe ar of ha

rm and his fa

m ilia l re lationship to la

ndowne rs in M e xic o. 1 An a pplic a nt se e king a sy lum

be c a u se of pe rse c ution or a

we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group “ m

ust de m onstra

te a ne xus be twe e n [his] pa st or fe are d ha rm and a prote c te d ground.” Garc ia v . W

ilk inson , 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th C ir. 2021) (c i tation omitte d).

1 M o lina -Ga

rc ia wa ive d re vie w of the B IA’ s de nia l of a sy lum ba se d on im pute d politic a l opinion a

nd his propose d soc ia l groups of “y oung M e x ic an m e n who ha v e pre viously re siste d ga

ng re c ruitm e nt,” and “ M e xic ans who fe ar kidna p ping or violenc e due to long-te rm re side nc e in the Unite d Stat e s or fam ily tie s in the Unite d State s ,” be c a use he fa i le d to a ddre ss the se grounds in his Ope ning B rie f. S

e e Martine

z -Se rrano v . I.N

. S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996). 3M olina -Garc ia te stifie d tha

t his fa t he r owne d

“ two hom e s a

nd two lots of la nd.” M olina -Ga

rc ia fe are d tha t ga ng-m e m be rs would im

pute the la

n d owne rship to him and “ want to be a t [him ] up.” Whe n a ske d if his fa the r ha d be e n a

pproa c he d by ga ngs or whe the r a

ny one ha d trie d to e xtort m one y from him for owning la

nd, M olina -Garc ia

re sponde d

“No.” Although M olina -Garc ia te s tifie d tha

t othe r fa m ily m e m be rs ha d be e n robbe d, he did not e sta blish tha t the pe rpe trators’ m otiva t ion for the robbe rie s wa s re late d to his fa the r’ s la nd owne rship. For the se re a s ons, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the de n ia l of a sy lum . Se e Gormle y v . Ashc roft , 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th C ir. 2004) (holding tha t fe a rs ste m m ing from isola te d c rim ina l a c t s do not provide a ba sis for re lie f). 3. B e c a use M olina -Garc ia

fa ile d to a d d

re ss in his Opening B rie f withholding of rem o v a l a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture , he ha s wa ive d a ny obje c tion to the

de nia l of the se c la i m s. Se e Martine z-Se rrano , 94 F.3d a t 1259. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D .

4