N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PEDR O B UC IO AB AR C A,

Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-72458 Age n c y No. A087-749-599
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

June 14, 2022 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd SIM ON, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JUN 17 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 a t 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).

* * * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ore g o n, sitting by de signa tion.Pe dro B uc io-Aba rc a (B uc io-Aba

rc a ), a c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for
re vie w of the Im

m igration Judge ’ s (IJ’ s) ne gative re a s ona ble fe ar de te rm ination
and the IJ’ s finding tha

t B uc io-Aba

rc a wa s not a c re dible witne s s. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition. W e re vie w a

n IJ’ s ne g ative re a sona

ble fe ar de te rm inat ion for substa ntia l
e vide nc e an d m

ust uphold the

de te rm ination “unle ss, ba se d on the e vide nc e , any re a s ona ble a djudic a tor would bec o m pe lle d to c onc lude to the c ontra ry .” Bartolome

v . Se ssions , 904 F.3d 803, 811 (9th C ir. 2018) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). 1. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the IJ’ s de te rm ination tha

t B uc io-Aba

rc a fa ile d to show tha

t the ha rm he fe are d wa s on a c c ount of a prote c t e d ground. B uc io-Aba

rc a te stifie d tha

t his fe ar of re turning to M e xic o ste m s from an inc i de nt in 2009. B uc io-Aba rc a wa s driving on a

highwa y in C a lifornia whe n he
wa s stoppe d by

Im m i gra tion offic ia ls. The offic i a ls a ske d if the y c ould se arc h the
ve hic le , a nd B u c io-Aba

rc a sta te d tha t the ve hic le be l onge d to som e one e lse
. B uc io-Aba

rc a wa s de ta ine d, proc e sse d, a nd a llowe d

to re turn to M e xic o. Afte r re turning to M e x ic o, B uc io-Aba rc a le arne d tha

t offic e rs ha d im

pounde d the
ve hic le , found drugs inside , a nd issue d a warrant for his a rre st. The owne r of the
ve hic le c o nta c te d

B uc io-Aba

rc o a nd a ske d for his loc a tion in M e xic o a n d a
2de sc ription of his c l othing. Subse que ntly , unknown individua ls in a truc k arrive d
and took B uc io-Aba

rc a to a house whe re the y

“ tie d [his] fe e t

and c he st,” “ pull[e d] ” his body , sla

ppe d him , a

nd de m ande d to know whe re the drugs from the ve h ic le
we re . Whe n a ske d why

the a s sa ila

nts ha rm e d him , B u c io-Aba

rc a re sponde d:

“ B e c a use the y wa nte d the i r drugs.” B uc io-Aba rc a t e stifie d tha

t the sa m e individua ls thre a te ne d him on a se c ond oc c a sion a

nd sta t e d: “ [R ] e m e m

be r what we told y ou? You ha

ve to pa y whate ve r the y

took a way from y ou ove r the re .” B uc io-Aba

rc a m a inta ins tha

t he wa s ta

rge te d ba s e d on his m e m

be rship in the propose d soc i a l groups of “ individua ls who ha ve inte rfe re d with drug tra ffic king ope ra t ions” and “ pe rc e i v e d drug tra ffic ke rs.” B uc io-Aba rc a a lso a sse rts tha

t “ the
c arte l m e m

be rs like ly

im pute d som e sort of a

nti-drug or a

nti-c arte l politic a l opinion onto him .” Howe ve r, we have he l d tha t a “ de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim i na l s . . . be a

rs no ne xus to a

prote c te d ground.” Ze tino v
. Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010), a s ame nde d (c ita tion omitte d). Like wise , we have he ld tha t “ pe rsona l re tribution is, of c ourse , not pe rse c ution on
a c c ount of politic a l opinion.” Grav a v . IN S , 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 n.3 (9th C ir. 2000). The re fore , B uc io-Aba rc a ’ s propose d groups a

re not c ogniz a

ble for purpose s of withholding of re m ova l. Se e Santos-Le mus v . Muk a se y , 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th C i r. 2008) (c o nc l uding tha t ge ne ra l opposition to ga ng a c tivity

is not a
3politic a l opinion), abrogate d on othe r grounds by He n rique z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ). Furthe r, the re is no e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t B uc io-Aba

rc a wa s politic a lly
a c tive or m a de any

anti-c arte l or a

nti-drug politic a l sta

te m e nts. Se e id. (noting the
a bse nc e of a prote c t e d ground whe n the re wa s “ no e vide nc e in the re c o rd tha t [pe t itione rs] we re politic a l ly a c tive or m a d e any anti-ga ng politic a l sta

te m e nts” ) (c ita tion omitte d). 1 2. B uc io-Aba

rc a fa ile d to a dva

nc e any argum e nt in his Open ing B rie f that he is e ligiblefor C AT prote c t ion a nd ha s the re fore wa i ve d this issue
. Se e Martine z -Se rrano v . I.N

.S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996). In a ny e ve nt, B uc io-Aba

rc a pre s e nte d no e v ide nc e tha t he would be torture d by , or with the
a c quie sc e nc e of a gove rnm e nt offic i a l. Se e Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th C ir. 2014), as ame nde d
. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

1 B e c a use substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the de te rm ination tha

t B uc io-Aba

rc a fa ile d to e sta

blish a ne xus be t

we e n the a sse rte d ha

rm and a prote c t e d ground, we ne e d not a ddre ss the a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. Se e Rie ra-Rie ra v . Ly nc h , 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ The la c k of a ne xus to a

prote c t e d ground is dispositive

of [pe titione r’ s] a s y lum

and withholding of re

m o va l c la im s.” ) 4