NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO JIMENEZ-VALERO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71957 

Agency No. A208-265-189 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 29, 2022**

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Jimenez-Valero, a citizen and native of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s 

order of removal denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for 

* 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).

FILED

SEP 1 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

review. 

1. Jimenez-Valero has failed to establish changed or extraordinary 

circumstances to excuse the twenty-year delay in filing his application for asylum. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). On appeal, Jimenez-Valero argues that the issuance 

of an Interpol Notice advising he is sought pursuant to an arrest warrant in Mexico 

constitutes a changed circumstance that excuses his failure to apply for asylum 

within the statutory timeframe. But the issuance of the Interpol Notice does not itself 

constitute a “change”; it merely provided international notice of the pre-existing fact 

that Mexico sought to prosecute Jimenez-Valero, a fact that Jimenez-Valero testified 

that he knew about since his brother had been detained and ultimately arrested on 

the same charges in 1995 or 1996. While it is not necessary that the conditions faced 

by an asylum applicant invoking the statutory exception be entirely new or distinct 

from threats previously encountered by the applicant, see Vahora v. Holder, 641 

F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2011), the change on which Jimenez-Valero relies—the 

predicate criminal proceedings—have existed, and Jimenez-Valero has known about 

them, for decades, see Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1083 (9th Cir. 2013). 

That a “red flag” notice was issued by Interpol does not alter the preexisting 

landscape.1 

1 Moreover, even if the issuance of the Interpol Notice could constitute a changed 

circumstance, “[p]rosecution for violating . . . laws of general applicability [does] 

not constitute persecution, unless the punishment [is] imposed for invidious 
3 

2. Nor has Jimenez-Valero met his burden of establishing eligibility for 

withholding of removal. To be eligible for withholding of removal, the burden is on 

Jimenez-Valero to demonstrate “it is more likely than not that he would be subject 

to persecution on one of the specified grounds,” Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 

1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 

(9th Cir. 2006)), of “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion upon removal,” Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 719 (9th 

Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)). 

Assuming without deciding that Jimenez-Valero’s proposed group, “former 

police officers,” can constitute a cognizable social group, substantial evidence 

supports the agency’s conclusion that Jimenez-Valero can reasonably relocate in 

Mexico. The record indicates that, even if gang members did have an interest in 

Jimenez-Valero decades ago, he lived without incident in Tijuana prior to entering 

the United States and other family members that are former police officers have lived 

in Mexico without incident. 

reasons.” Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 222 (BIA 1985), overruled on other 

grounds by Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I. & N. Dec. 439 (BIA 1987). While JimenezValero asserted that the crime with which he and his brother were charged was 

“fabricated,” Jimenez-Valero conceded during testimony before the Immigration 

Judge that the court order releasing Jimenez-Valero’s brother from jail did not 

indicate that the case was fabricated. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

conclusion that he failed to establish that the criminal proceedings rise to the level 

of persecution. 
4 

3. Finally, substantial evidence supports the Board’s holding that 

Jimenez-Valero is ineligible for protection under the CAT. To qualify for CAT 

protection, the applicant must “establish that it is more likely than not that he or she 

would be tortured if removed” by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican 

government. Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)). Jimenez-Valero’s briefing does 

not point to any evidence in the record or make any argument to support a finding 

that Jimenez-Valero will likely be tortured, and for the same reasons that substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that he is not eligible for withholding of 

removal, Jimenez-Valero has not established entitlement to protection under the 

CAT.2

Therefore, the petition is DENIED. 

2

Jimenez-Valero additionally argued that the Board failed to address his contention 

that he requested and was denied voluntary departure. But the Board noted that 

Jimenez-Valero testified unequivocally before the IJ that he would not voluntarily 

depart, and there is no basis to disturb that conclusion.