N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
JESSE PEREZ-M AR ,

Pe titione r,
v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 21-588 Age nc y No. A201-906-126
M EM OR 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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 12, 2023 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N, B YB EE, a

nd DESAI, C irc uit Judge s. Je sse Pe re z -M ar, a

c itiz e n of M e xic o, se e ks re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (B IA) de c ision a ffirm ing the Im m igration Judge ’ s (IJ) de nia l of a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c t ion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C A T). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ), and we 

# F IL ED APR 18 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.dism iss in pa rt a nd de ny in pa rt the pe tition. 1. Asy lum

and W ithholding of R

e m ova l. W e m a

y re vie w a

fina l orde r of
re m ova l only

if the nonc itiz e n

“ ha s e xha

uste d a ll a dm inistra

tive re m e die s a

va ila ble
. . . a s of right.” Id . § 1252(d)(1). If a pe titione r fa i ls to pre se nt a c la im in the
a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings be low, we la c k subje c t m atte r jurisdic t ion to c onside r the m e rits of tha

t le ga l c l a im
. Pagay on v . Holde r , 675 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th C ir. 2011). He re , the IJ c onc lude d tha t Pe re z -M ar fa i le d to e s ta blish a ne xus be twe e n the thre at of pe rse c ution a

nd his propose d pa

rtic ula r soc ia l groups (PSGs). On a ppe a l to the B IA, Pe re z -M ar m e ntione d the IJ’ s ne xus de t e rm i nation in the fa c ts se c tion of his brie f. B ut his a

rgum e nt se c t ion ne gle c t e d to a ddre ss a ny of the IJ’ s ne xus findings, nor did he argue any whe re in his brie f that those findings we re inc orre c t. The B IA found tha

t Pe re z -M a

r fa ile d to m e aningfully

c ha lle nge the IJ’ s ne xus
c onc lusion a

nd the re fore c onside re d the issue wa ive d. Pe re z -M ar ne ve rthe le ss a sse rts tha t his a rgum e n t to theB IA that his propose d PSGs we re le ga lly

c ogniz a ble w a s suffic ie nt to ra ise the ne xus issue unde r Zhang v . Ashc roft , 388 F.3d 713 (9th C i r. 2004). W e disa g re e . “ [T] he inquiry into whe t he r a group is a

‘ pa rtic ula r soc i a l group’ is distinc t from the inquiry into the‘ ne x us’ re quire m e nt, whic h c onside rs whe the r a pe rson is 2pe rse c ute d ‘ on a c c ount of’ m e m be rship in a pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group.” Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th C ir. 2016) (c ita tion omi tte d). Argum e nts a bout PSG c ogniz a

bility , the re fore , did not put the B IA on notic e tha

t Pe re z -M ar wa s
a ppe a ling theunm e ntione d ne xus de te rm ination. Furthe rm ore , we have c onsiste ntly he ld tha t the c o re re quire m e nt of
e xha ustion is tha

t “ the a g e nc y

ha [ve ] an opportunity

to pa ss” on the re le v ant issue
. Zhang, 388 F.3d a

t 721; se ealso Gonzale

z -C astillo v . Garland

, 47 F.4th 971, 980–81 (9th C ir. 2022); Vizc arra-Ay ala v . Muk ase y , 514 F.3d 870, 873 (9th C ir. 2008). A fle e ting m e ntion of theIJ’ s ne xus de te rm ination in the fa c ts se c t ion of Pe re z -M ar’ s B IA brie f doe s not sa t isfy the e xha u stion re quire m e nt. W e the re fore la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Pe re z -M ar’ s une xha uste d ne xus
argum e nt, 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(d)(1), a nd we ne e d

not c onside r the B IA’ s de c ision
re ga rding the propose d PSGs. 1 2. R e lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e re vie w the B IA’ s “ le ga l
c onc lusions denovo.” Planc a rteSauc e da v . Garland , 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th C ir. 2022) (e m

pha sis om itte d), a

nd the fa c tua l ba s e s “ for substa ntia l e vide nc e ,”

1 W e note tha

t Pe re z -M ar m ay

have grounds to a sk the B IA to re o pe n his proc e e dings. Should the

B IA re ope n proc e e d ings, it should a na l y z e the propose d PSGs in a c c orda

nc e with our holding in Ac e v e do Granados v . Garland , 992 F.3d 755 (9th C i r. 2021)

. 3Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C ir. 2019) (c ita tions omitte d). W e m ay “ re ve rse the B IA only

on a finding tha

t the e vide nc e not only

supports a
c ontra ry c onc lusion, but c o m

pe ls it.” Diaz-Torre

s v . Barr , 963 F.3d 976, 980 (9th C ir. 2020) (c ita

tion omitte d). Whe the r an e ntity ha s the spe c ific inte nt to ha rm is a que stion of fa c t. G ue rra v . Barr , 974 F.3d 909, 913 (9th C ir. 2020). Theque stion of whe the r a

buse or ha

ra ssm e nt c onstitute s torture , a s de fine d by fe de ra l
re gula tions, is a que stion of la

w. Ridore

v . Holde r , 696 F.3d 907, 915–16 (9th C ir. 2012).

“ To qua lify

for re l ie f unde r C AT, [a

pe titione r] m

u st de m onstra

te tha t it is
m ore like ly

tha n not tha t he would be torture d

if re m ove d to M e xic o.” Duran-Rodrigue

z , 918 F.3d a

t 1029 (c iting 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2) and K amalthas v . IN

S , 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th C ir. 2001)). And “to e sta blish a like lihood of torture

for purpose s of the C AT, a pe titione r m ust show tha

t se ve re pa in or suffe ring wa s spe c ific a l ly inte nde d—

that is, tha

t the a c tor inte n d the a c tua l
c onse q ue nc e s of his c onduc t, a s distinguishe d from the a c t tha

t c a use s the se
c onse q ue nc e s.” Ville

gas v . Muk

ase y , 523 F.3d 984, 989 (9th C ir. 2008). Eve n a ssum ing tha

t the institutiona

liz ation of m e nta l ly

ill individua

l s in M e x ic o c onstitute s inte ntiona l torture , a nd tha t the M e xic an gove rnm e nt
a c quie sc e s to suc h tre atm e nt, Pe re z -M ar ha s not e sta blishe d tha

t it is more like ly 4tha

n not tha t he will be torture d. Pe re z -M ar ha s not e xpe rie nc e d pa st torture . Pe re z -M ar supplie d sta

tistic s showing tha

t only 2.5% of pe o ple with se v e re m e nta l disorde rs “ re c e ive the ne c e ssa ry c are .” B ut this sta

tistic a lone doe s not suffic e to show tha t Pe re z -M ar will fa c e e ve ntua l torture
. 2 Take n in the a ggre gate , Pe re z M ar ha s not shown tha

t he (a ) will be una

ble to tre at

his sc hiz ophre n ia , (b) will
attra c t the atte ntion of offic ia ls, a nd (c ) will ultimate ly

be institutiona

liz e d. B e c a use a pe titione r’ s e ve n tua l torture m ust be “ m ore like ly

tha n not” to m e rit C AT prote c tion, theB IA did not e rr whe n it found tha t Pe re z -M ar’ s c la im s we re too spe c ulative to m e rit C AT re lie f. Duran-Rodrigue z , 918 F.3d a

t 1029 (c i ting 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2)). DISM I SSE D in par t and DE NIE D in par t.

2 The B IA a lso found tha t Pe re z -M ar did not m e a

ningfully c ha lle nge the IJ’ s finding tha

t pe titione r fa ile d to show tha t his propose d tre atm e nt would be una va ila ble in M e xic o, so the B IA de e m e d this issue “ wa ive d .” 5