N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
VIC ENTA HER

NANDEZ-PERE Z, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-71755 Age n c y No. A202-086-518
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 11, 2022 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , IKUTA, a nd B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. Vic e nta He rnan de z Pe re z (“ He rnande z Pe re z ” ) pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA’ s” ) orde r dism issing he r a p pe a l of a n Im m i gration Judge ’ s (“ IJ’ s” ) orde r de ny ing He rnande z Pe re z ’ s a p plic ations for 

# FIL ED FEB 15 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 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). The re fore , the a ppe lla nt’ s m otion to se t argum e nt is DENIED.a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd de ny the pe tition. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t He rna nde z Pe re z fa ile d to e sta

blish pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. Eve n a ssum ing without de c iding, a s the B IA did, tha t He rnan de z Pe re z ’ s te s tim ony wa s c re dible , 1 substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm inat ion tha

t He rnande z Pe re z wa s ta rge te d sole ly “ a s a

form of re ve nge be c a

use she de c line d [he r a lle g e d pe rse c utor’ s] re que s t to be in a re lationship with him .” B e c a use pe rse c ution on
a c c ount of a pe rsona l de sire for re ve nge is not pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground, se e Pagay on v . Holde r , 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th C ir. 2011), He rnande z Pe re z ’ s c la im s for both a s y lum and withholding fa

il, se e Singh v . Barr , 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th C ir. 2019) (pe r c uriam ). 2 Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t He rnande z Pe re z wa s not m ore like ly tha n not to betorture d “ by , or at the instiga tion of, or

1 B e c a use the B IA ne ithe r e xpre ssly a dopte d the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation nor c onduc te d its own a na ly sis of He rnande z Pe re z ’ s c re dibility , a n d wa s not re quire d to do e ithe r, we do not a ddre s s He rnande z Pe re z ’ s c ha lle nge to the a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination. Se e Arre

y v . Barr , 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th C ir. 2019).

2 B e c a use the B IA a ssum e d without de c iding tha t He rnande z Pe re z ’ s pa rtic u la r soc ia l groups (“ PSGs” ) we re c ogniz a ble , a nd did not e xpre ssly a dopt the IJ’ s de te rm inat ions, we do not a ddre ss He rnande z Pe re z ’ s c ha lle nge to the PSG inquiry
. Se e Arre

y , 916 F.3d a

t 1157. 2with thec onse nt or a c q uie sc e nc e of, a public offic ia l a c ting in a n offic ia l c a

pa c ity or othe r pe rson a c t i ng in a n offic ia l c a

pa c ity ” if re turne d to Gua te m a la . 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.18(a)(1); s e e also id. § 1208.16(c )(2). The B IA’ s c onc lusion wa s supporte d by He rnande z Pe re z ’ s te s tim ony tha t “ the polic e in he r are a

only spoke Spanish,” but [he r a lle g e d pe rse c utor] and his a c c om plic e s spoke M a

m , an d the la c k of
e vide nc e tha

t [he r a l l e ge d pe rse c utor] and his two ac c om p lic e s use d ge nuine (a s oppose d to fa

ke or stole n) polic e -a ffilia t e d e quipm e nt or a

ttire
. Se e Andrade

Garc ia v . Ly nc h , 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ W e have re ve rse d a ge nc y de te rm i nations tha

t future torture is not like l y only whe n the a ge nc y

fa i le d to ta

ke into a c c ount signific ant e v ide nc e e s ta blishing gove

rnm e nt c om

p lic ity in the
c rim ina l a c tivity
. ” ). Although the B IA e rre d

in sugge sting He rnande z Pe re z wa s re quire d to prove inte rna l re l oc at ion wa s unre a sona ble , se eDaw

son v . Garland

, 998 F.3d 876, 884 (9th C i r. 2021), thee rror wa s ha rm le ss be c a

u se the B IA re

je c te d He rnande z Pe re z ’ s c l a i m

for C AT re lie f on the ground tha t she fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t he r
atta c k e rs we re polic e m e n. M ore ove r, the re c ord provide s substa ntia l e vide nc e tha

t it is not unre a sona

ble for He rna

nde z Pe re z to inte rna lly

re loc ate to e sc a

pe like ly torture , give n tha

t a ll of thea l le ge d atta c ks oc c urre d in theTodos Sa ntos a re a of

3Guate m a la

and he r a l le ge d torture rs we re ne ithe r from the gove rnm e nt nor gove rnm e nt-sponsore d. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(3)(ii). He rnande z Pe re z ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the B IA fa i le d to a ddre ss the c ountry
c onditions evide nc e a de quate ly is be l ie d by

the re c ord, be c a

use the B IA e xpre ssly
c onside re d suc h e vide nc e and de te rm ine d it did not e sta

b lish He rnande z Pe re z ’ s

“ indiv idualize d risk of tortureif re turne d to Gua t e m a la .” W e a lso re

j e c t He rnande z Pe re z ’ s a rgum e nts re g a

rding e rrors m a de by

the IJ, be c a

use we re vie w the B IA’ s de c ision, a

nd the B IA did not m ake the sa m e e rrors. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4