N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAVIER M AR TINEZ-R IVAS, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 22-955 Age n c y No. A205-316-096 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 July 17, 2023 **
B e fore : HAW KINS, S.R . THOM AS, and M c KEOW N, C i rc uit Judge s. Javie r M artine z -R iva s, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of a B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing a n Im m igration Judge (“ IJ” )’ s de c ision de ny ing a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ), a nd c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l. W e have 

# F IL ED JUL 19 2023 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).jurisdic tion pursua n t to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W he re , a s he re , the B IA issue s its own opinion, “ [w] e re vie w only the B IA’ s de c ision, e xc e pt to thee xte nt tha t it
e xpre s sly a dopts theIJ’ s opinion.” Flore s-Lope z v . Holde r , 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th C ir. 2012). W

e re vie w the B IA’ s fa c tua l findings re ga rding a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd C A T prote c tion for substa

ntia l e vide nc e , a f

firm ing “unle ss a

ny re a s ona ble a djudic ator would bec o m pe lle d to c onc lude to the c ontra ry .” Gutie r r e z-Alm v . Garland , 62 F .4th 1 186, 1 194, 1 198, 1201 (9th C ir . 2023) (c ita tion omitte d). B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c tua l and proc e dura l history of the c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w . 1. W e de ny

the pe tition a s to M artine z -R iva s’ s a sy lum c la im be c a use he did not c ha lle nge the IJ’ s de nia l of a sy l um be fore the B IA. In his pe tition for re vie w, M artine z -R iva s doe s not c ha lle nge the B IA’ s de t e rm i nat ion tha t he wa i ve d

his
a sy lum c la im

by fa iling to pre se rve it be fore the B IA. The B IA thus prope rly dism isse d R odrigue zJim e ne z ’ s a sy lum c la i m a s wa ive d. Martine

z-Se r rano v . I.N .S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996). 2. As to withholding of re m ova l, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha

t M artine z -R iva s did not e sta b lish a “ c le ar proba

bility of pe rse c ution” ba se d on his re lationship to his brothe r. Ade n v . W

ilk i nson , 989 F.3d
21073, 1085–86 (9th C ir. 2021) (quoting K orablina v . I.N

.S. , 158 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th C ir. 1998)). M artine z -R iva s ha s not c ha lle nge d the IJ’ s finding tha t his te stim ony a bout why he fe are d to re turn to M e xic o wa s not c re dible , so he m ust
re ly on doc um e nta

ry e vide nc e in the re c o rd. The IJ did find c re dible tha t M artine z -R iva s’ s brothe r, Ale ja ndro, wa s a

fe de ra l drug e nforc e m e nt offic e r in M e x ic o, a nd the B IA re c ogniz e d tha t, ba se d on his oc c upation, Ale ja n dro fa c e d viole nc e and thre ats to him se lf a nd his fa m ily in M e xic o. The B IA a lso re c o gniz e d that le tte rs from

anothe r brothe r, Ge rardo, a nd M artine z -R iva s’ s m othe r indic ate d that Ge rardo fe ars re ta lia

tion ba se d on Ale

j andro’ s oc c upation a

nd tha t both Ge rardo a nd the i r m otion ha

ve be e n vic tim s of ge ne ra l c rim e in M e xic o . B ut, a s the B IA note d, the le tte rs do not indic ate tha t a ny fam ily m e m b e rs ha ve be e n ha rm e d a s a re sult of Ale

ja ndro’ s oc c upation, se e Ruiz-C o l me n a re s v . Garland

, 25 F.4th 742, 751 (9th C ir. 2022), a nd re ports of violenc e a ga inst la w e nforc e m e nt do not supply

e v ide nc e of a

n individualiz e d risk tha

t M artine z -R iva s would beha rm e d in M e xic o , se e Sark

ar v . Garland

, 39 F.4th 611, 622–23 (9th C ir. 2022). Ac c ordingly , substa

ntia l e vide n c e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t M artine z -R iva s did not e sta blish a c le ar proba

bility of pe rse c ution ba se d on his
re lationship to his brothe

r, and we de ny

this pa rt of the pe tition. 3. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t M a rtine z 3R iva s did not qualify for C AT prote c tion. As discusse d a bove , M artine z -R iva s
m ust re ly on the doc um e nta

ry e vide nc e in the re c ord, a

nd the B IA prope rly de te rm i ne d tha

t the le tte rs from

his m othe r and Ge rardo a nd the re ports of violenc e
a ga inst la w e n forc e m e n t do not prove it is m ore like ly

tha n not tha t M artine z -R iva s will be individually

ta rge t e d for torture if he re turns to M e xic o. Se e , e . g., Ruiz-C olme nare s , 25 F.4th a

t 751 (de ny ing re vie w whe re pe titione r “ offe re d no
e vide nc e showing hefa c e s a ny pa rtic ula riz e d risk of torture ” ). W e the re fore de ny this pa rt of the pe tition. 4. M artine z -R i va s c ha l le nge s the IJ’ s de te rm ination tha t he is ine ligiblefor
c anc e lla tion of re m ova l b e c a

use he fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t re m ova l would re sult in a n e xc e ptiona l a

nd e x tre m e ly

unusua l ha

rdship to his Unite d State s-c itiz e n c hildre n. W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r this c l a im
. Se e Martine z -Rosas v . Gonzale

s , 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th C ir. 2005); 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(B )(i). Although we
re ta in jurisdic tion ove r c olora ble que stions of la

w a nd c onstitutiona

l c la im s, 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(D), M artine z -R i va s’ s a rgum e nts the IJ fa ile d to give suffic ie nt
we ight to his ev ide n c e or ba se d its de c ision on c onje c ture are not supporte d by the
re c o rd. Se e Martine

z-Rosas , 424 F.3d a

t 930 (“ To be c olora

ble in this c onte xt, . . . the c la i m m ust ha ve som e possibleva lidity .” ) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). W e the re fore dism iss this pa rt of the pe tition.

4PE T IT IO N DE NIE D IN PART , DISM ISSE D IN PART .

5