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

ALB ER TO B A R R ER

A-FLOR ES, Pe t i tione r,

v. M ER R IC K B

. GAR LAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-71076 Age n c y No. A205-319-927

M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 16, 2022 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : NGUYEN a nd FOR R EST, C ir cu i t Judge s, a

nd FITZW ATER , *** Distric t Judge

. 

# F IL ED

DEC 16 2022
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r op r i at e for public a tion 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.

* * T h e p an el u n an i m o u sl y co n cl u d es t h i s cas e i s s u i tab l e for de c isio n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* ** The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa t e r, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.Albe rto B a rre ra -Flore s (“ B a rre ra -Flore s ” ) pe titions for re vie w of a de c ision of

the B oa rd of Im m igra tion A ppe a ls (“ B IA” ) a ffirm ing the im m igra t ion j udge ’ s (“ IJ’ s” ) orde r de ny ing B a rre ra -Flore s’ a pplic a tions fo r asy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C

. § 12 5 2 ( a) a nd u nde r 8 U.S.C

. § 1252(a )(2)(D) to the e xte nt B a rre ra Flore s pre se n ts a c onstitutiona l issue re ga

rding his a sy lum c la im

. W e de ny the
pe tition for re vie w. W e re vie w fa c tua l findings for su b s ta ntia l e vide nc e a

n d le ga l que stions de

novo. Me lk

onian v

. Ashc r oft , 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th C i r. 2003). 1. B a rre ra -Flore s m a inta ins tha t the B IA a nd IJ viola te d his due proc e ss rights by re fusing to fully c onside r a nd de ve lop the re co r d as to the a p plic a bility of the

c ha nge d c i rc um s ta

nc e s e xc e ption. To suc c e ssfully a sse rt a due proc e ss c la im , a pe titione r m

ust e sta blish e rror a nd substa

n t ia l pre judic e . Larita-Martine

z v
. IN S , 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th C ir. 2000). Th e I J d i d n o t err i n this c a se be c a use he fulfille d his proc e dura l obliga

tions b y a sking pe rtine nt que s tion s o f B a rre ra -Flore s a n d providing him a n opportunity to subm it a dditiona l e vide nc e on the issue of t im e line ss. The IJ ha d no d u t y to c o nside r sua s ponte whe the r B a rre ra -Flore s qua lifie d for the

c ha nge d c irc u m sta

nc e s e xc e ption to the one -y e a r ba r. Se e 8 C .F.R

. § 208.4(a )(2)(i)(B ) (pla c ing the burde n of proving a n e xc e ption on the

a sy lum a pplic a nt).

- 2 -As to the issue of p re judic e , B a rre ra -Flore s d id n o t show tha t t he c ha nge d circ um sta nc e s e xc e ption pote ntia lly a pplie d to his c a s e . A nd he a lso fa iled t o

e sta blish tha t h e pote ntia lly wa s e ligible for a sy lum ha d t he e x c e p t io n s ave d his othe rwise untim el y ap p l ic a tion. B a rre ra -Flore s did not a rtic ula te a suffic ie ntly
pa rtic u la r soc ia l group on whic h his fe a rs of pe rse c ution a re ba se d, nor, a s a ddre sse d

ne xt, did he e sta

blish a ne xus be twe e n a ny purporte d soc ia l g roup a nd the p e rse c ution tha t he fe a

rs. For the s e re a sons, B a rre ra -Flore s did not e sta b lish pre judic e . W e re

je c t his due proc e ss a

rgum e nt. 2. B a rre ra -Flore s c onte nds tha t t he B IA e rre d in de ny ing him withh o l d ing of

re m ova l. To e sta

blish e ligibility for w ithholding of re m ova l , a non-c itiz e n m ust de m onstra

te tha t it is m o re like ly tha n not tha t he will be s ubje c t to pe rse c ution on the ba sis o f one of the prote c t e d grounds e num er a te d in 8 U.S.C

. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Se e IN S v. C ardoza-Fonse c a , 480 U.S. 421, 4 29 (1987). B a rre ra -Flore s ba se s his

a pplic a tion for withholding of re m ova l on the prote c te d g round o f m e m be rs h i p i n a pa rtic u la r soc ia l group. 8 U

. S .C

. § 1231(b)(3)(A). A pe titione r m ust a l so e sta

blish

a suffic ie nt ne xus be twe e n the prote c te d ground o n w hic h he re lie s a nd the p e rse c ution he fe a rs. Se e Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th C ir. 2017). B a rre ra -Flore s a s se rts tha t he is a m e m be r of the soc ia l group “ y oung M e xic a n ci t i z e ns re turning to M e x ic o tha t c rim i na ls no longe r be l ie ve a re M e xic a n c itiz e ns.”

- 3 -This C ourt ha s pre viously de e m e d sim ilar p u r p o rte d soc i a l groups insuffic ie ntly

pa rtic u la r, a nd thus not c ogniz a

ble , for purpose s o f § 1231. Se e , e .g. , De lgado-Ortiz

v
. H olde r , 600 F.3d 1 1 48, 1 151-52 (9th C ir. 20 1 0 ) (pe r c uria m ). Ac c o rdingly , t his

a sse rte d soc ia l group is like w ise not c ogniz a

b le

. In his b rie f t o this C ourt, B a rre ra -Flore s a l so a rgue s tha t h is fa m ily q u a lifie s a s

a se pa ra t e pa rtic u la r soc ia l g r o u p. In a n a tte m pt to d e fine this ne w ly -a sse rte d
pa rtic u la r soc ia l group, B a rre ra -Flore s points to e vide nc e of c rim i na l a c t s s uffe re d by fa m ily m e m

be rs. Som e , b ut not a ll, of his fa m ily m e m be rs hav e be e n ha

rm e d by
gan g s i n M e xic o, but the re is n othing in the re c ord tha t supports the c onc lusion tha t

a ny of the s e inc ide nts wa s a re sul t o f ei t h er the vic tim s’ m e m be rship i n B a rre ra Flore s ’ a sse rted so ci a l group or t he ir fa m ilia l a ssoc i a tion. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t B a rre ra -Flore s ha s fa ile d to e sta blish the re quisite

ne xus be twe e n e ithe r of his a sse rte d pa rticu l ar soc i a l groups a nd the pe rse c ution he fe a rs. For the se re a sons, the B IA did not e rr in a ffirm ing the IJ’ s de nia l of withholding of re m ova l. 3. B a rre ra -Flore s a lso c h a lle nge s t he de nia l of prote c tion unde r t he C AT. The C AT p re ve nts the Unite d Sta te s f r om r em ov ing a non-c itiz e n whe n it is m ore like l y
t h an n o t tha t the non-c itiz e n will be torture d if re m ove d to the propose d c ountry of

- 4 -re m ova l. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). A pe titione r m ust show tha

t he is subje c t to

a pa rtic ula riz e d risk of torture

. De lgado-Ortiz , 6 00 F.3d a t 1152. And the a c t of
t o r ture m ust be a c quie sc e d in by a public offic ia l, m e a ning tha t the public offic ia l

m ust b e a wa re o f b ut willfully b lind t o it or u nwilling to o ppose it. K aur v
. Garland

, 2 F.4th 823, 837 (9th C ir. 2021). B a rre ra -Flore s ha s not e s ta b lishe d tha t he is a t a p a rtic u la r i zed r i s k of be ing
torture d if re m ove d to M e xic o. Se e De lgado-Ortiz , 6 00 F.3d at 1 15 2

. T h e re c ord shows tha t indisc rim ina t e viole nc e a nd c rim e a re ubiquitous in M e xic o, a nd e ve n tha t the ra nc h whe re B a rre ra -Flore s’ fa m ily re si d es ha s be e n te rroriz e d by a l oc a l ga n g

c a lle d La Fa m ilia

. B ut this i s insuffic ie nt. The re is n o indic a tion tha t B a rre ra -Flore s himse l f is like ly t o fa ll vic tim to a n a c t of viole n c e . M ore ove r, he ha s not e s ta blishe d tha t he w ould e ndure torture in whic h a public offic ia l a c q

u ie sc e s. C

f. K aur , 2 F.4th

a t 837. W hile the re c ord c onta ins e vide nc e tha t the polic e a re g e ne ra lly distruste d by

c itiz e ns in B a

rre ra -Flore s’ hom e town, this doe s not am o u n t t o a c quie sc e nc e . Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT prote c tion. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D

.

- 5 -