NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN DOMINGUE Z

- 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

* Th e 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 pet itioner’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 APPEALS2

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

,

s ee Alonso

- Juarez v. Garland , 80 F.4th 1039, 104 3 (9th Cir. 2023) , and w e 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 compel s the conclusion that individuals who cooperate

with law enforcement are viewed as socially distinct within Mexican society

.
Dominguez d id 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”

— i ncluding 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 with3

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

f inding 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 support ed 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 testimo ny 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).