NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN DOMINGUEZ-ROBLES,*

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-1083

Agency No.

A070-123-745

MEMORANDUM**

On Petition for Review of an Order of an

Immigration Judge

Submitted February 9, 2024***

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: BERZON, HURWITZ, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Martin Dominguez-Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

* The Clerk shall edit the case name and caption to reflect the spelling 

of the petitioner’s last name—Dominguez-Robles—used in the agency decision on 

review and in petitioner’s opening brief.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 14 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

review of the determination of an immigration judge (“IJ”) that he does not have a 

reasonable fear of persecution or torture. We review the IJ’s negative reasonable

fear determination for substantial evidence. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 

F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, 

see Alonso-Juarez v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2023), and we deny 

the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that the particular 

social group proposed by Dominguez is not socially distinct. See Diaz-Torres v. 

Barr, 963 F.3d 976, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2020). Neither the record evidence nor 

Dominguez’s testimony compels the conclusion that individuals who cooperate 

with law enforcement are viewed as socially distinct within Mexican society. 

Dominguez did not participate in any legal proceedings or file a formal report with 

the police, and the Mexican witness protection program he identified would not 

extend to him or his proposed social group. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 

1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that “the absence of society-specific 

evidence of social distinction”—including the lack of “special legal protection” for 

those who make reports to the police—supported the conclusion that the proposed 

group was not socially distinct).

2. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Dominguez 

failed to establish a reasonable possibility that he would be tortured in Mexico with 
3

the acquiescence of the government. First, the record evidence supports the IJ’s 

finding that the Mexican government is taking steps to address violence and 

corruption caused by organized crime groups. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 

F.3d 1026, 1035 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that government efforts to combat crime 

and violence supported a finding that there was no government acquiescence even 

when those efforts “ha[d] not achieved the desired goals of resolving crimes and 

protecting citizens”). Second, Dominguez’s testimony about the potential 

inefficacy of local police efforts to protect him does not constitute “significant 

evidence establishing government complicity in the criminal activity,” especially 

where, as here, he also testified that local police would try to help him and that 

they have previously responded to a violent crime and apprehended the suspect.

Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836.

The motion and supplemental motion for stay of removal are DENIED as 

moot.1

PETITION DENIED.

1 The temporary stay of removal shall remain in effect until issuance of the 

mandate. See General Order 6.4(c).