NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT GER ARDO M AR TINEZ- ) No. 11-73390 VELASQUEZ, ) ) Age n c y

No. A088-673-942 Pe titione r, ) ) M EM OR

A NDUM * v. ) ) ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y ) Ge ne ra l, ) ) R e sponde nt. ) )

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 M a

rc h 3, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, FER NANDEZ, a

nd NGUYEN, C irc u it Judge s. Ge rardo M artine z -Ve la sque z , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de nia l of his a pplic a tions for 

# FIL E D APR 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l , 1 a sy lum , 2 withholding of rem ova l, 3 and C o nve n tion Aga inst Torture(C A T) 4 re lie f. W e de ny the pe tition. (1) M artine z argue s tha t he is not ba

rre d from c a nc e lla tion of re m ova l
c onside ra tion. W e disa gre e . B e c a use M artine z c om

m itte d a c rim e of dom e stic viole nc e 5 within the

m e a ning of 8 U.S.C . § 1227(a )(2)(E)(i), he is ba rre d from
c onside ra tion for c anc e lla t ion of re m ova l re lie f. 6 Se e M arque z -C arrillo v. Holde r, No. 12-70779, slip op. a

t 10 (9th C ir. M ar. 31, 2015); B anue l os-Ay on v. Holde r, 611 F.3d 1080, 1081 (9th C ir. 2010); Va sque z -He rnan de z v. Holde r, 590 F.3d 1053, 1055–56 (9th C ir. 2010). (2) M artine z the n a

rgue s tha t the B IA e rre d whe n it de n ie d him a s y lum
re lie f. Aga in, we disa gre e .

(a ) M artine z is ba

rre d at the thre shold by

the one -y e ar statute of

1 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1). 2 8 U.S.C . § 1158. 3 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3). 4 Unite d Nat ions C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture and Othe r C rue l, Inhum an or De gra ding Tre a tm e nt or Punishm e nt, a d opte d De c . 10, 1984, S. Tre at y Doc . No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, im ple m e nte d

a t 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.18. 5 C a l. Pe n a l C ode § 273.5 (1997). 6 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(C ). 2lim ita

tions, 7 be c a

use he file d his a

pplic ation for re lie f ove r fifte e n y e ars a fte r his
arriva l in the Unite d

State s a nd did not show cha

nge d c irc um sta

n c e s tha t would justify the lat e filing. 8 While the re m ay be m ore c rim e and viole nc e in M e xic o tha n the re onc e wa s, he ha s not shown when the c ha nge took pla c e , or tha

t it
m a te ria l ly a ffe c te d his a pplic a tion for a sy lum . Se e R am a da n v. Gonz a l e s, 479 F.3d 646, 657–58 (9th C ir. 2007) (pe r c uriam ). M ore ove r, on the re c o rd be fore it, the B IA wa s suffic ie ntly e xp la natory whe n it de nie d re lie f. Se e Na jm a ba di v. Holde r, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010).

(b) Eve n if his a sy lum

c l a im we re not ba

rre d by the sta tute of lim ita tions, hec ould not pre va i l on the m e rits. The B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t a n a lie n is not e ligible for a sy lum m ust be uphe ld if “ ‘ supporte d by re a sona b le , substa ntia l, a n d proba tive e vide nc e on the re c ord c onside re d a s a whole .’ ” INS v. Elia s-Za c aria s, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. C t. 812, 815, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992).

“ It c an be re ve rse d only

if the e vide nc e pre s e nte d . . . wa s suc h tha t a re a sona ble fa c t finde r would ha

ve to c o nc lude tha

t the re quisite fe ar of pe rse c ution e xiste d.” Id.; se e a l so Fa

rah v. Ashc roft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). W he n an

7 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(B ); se e a lso Singh v. Holde r, 656 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th C ir. 2011).

8 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(D). He doe s not c la i m e x tra ordina

ry c i rc um sta

nc e s. 3a lie n se e ks to ove rturn the B IA’ s a d ve rse de te rm ination, “ he m u st show tha

t the
e vide nc e he pre se n te d wa s so c om pe lling tha

t no re a sona

ble fa c tfinde r c ould fa il to find the re quisite fe a

r of pe rse c ution.” Elia s-Za c aria s, 502 U.S. a t 483–84, 112 S. C t. at 817. W

he n an a s y lum c la im

is involve d, a

n a lie n m ust show a sta

tutorily
prote c te d ground, 9 and e i the r pa st pe rse c ution or a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution tha

t is “ subje c t ive ly

ge nuine an d obje c tive ly

re a sona ble .” 1 0 M artine z did not m e e t his burde n. In the first pla c e , he argue s tha t he is a
m e m b e r of a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group, whic h is one of the prote c te d c a te gorie s. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(42). The B IA found to thec ontra ry , a nd on this re c o rd we
c annot sa y that it e rre d. He sought to ha ve the B IA de te rm ine tha t a pa rtic ula r soc i a l group wa s M e xic a

n c itiz e ns who ha d spe nt one -ha lf or m ore of the ir live s in the U nite d State s, but the n a gre e d tha t he wa s not within tha

t group. His fa llba c k position a m ounte d to a

c la im tha t the group wa s M e xic an c itiz e ns who a re re turning from

the Unite d State s a fte r spe nding som e tim e he re , but we have re je c te d tha t a s a “ c ogniz a ble soc ia l group.” De lga do-Ortizv. Holde r, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ).

9 Se e Garc ia -M artine z v. Ashc roft, 371 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2004); se e a lso 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(42).

1 0 Fishe r v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th C i r. 1996) (e n ba nc ); se e a lso Gu v. Gonz a le s, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th C ir. 2006). 4M ore ove r, the e vide nc e doe s not c om pe l a c o nc lusion tha

t he ha s a we llfounde d fe ar of pe rse c ution. Se e Elia s-Za c a ria s, 502 U.S. a

t 481 n.1, 112 S. C t. at 815 n.1; Pa

russim o va

v. M uka se y , 555 F.3d 734, 739–40 (9th C ir. 2009). R a the r, the e vide n c e shows tha

t he m ight e nc ounte r diffic ultie s in M e xic o a rising out of ge ne ra l a n d wide s pre a d

soc ia l p roble m s, 1 1 ra the r tha n wrongs ta

rge te d a t him se lf or those like him , a

nd doe s not sugge st tha

t the gove rnm e nt would not ren de r a id. 1 2 (3) B e c a

use M artine z c ould not m e e t his burde n re ga rding a s y lum , he
ne c e ssa rily fa ile d to e sta blish e ligibility

for withholding of rem ova l. Se e Garc ia -M ilia

n v. Holde r, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 n.4 (9th C ir. 2014); Liu v. Holde r, 640 F.3d 918, 926 n.5 (9th C i r. 2011); Gha ly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th C ir. 1995). (4) Fina lly , the e vide nc e in the re c ord doe s not c om pe l a de te rm ination that it is m o re like l y

tha n not tha t M artine z would be torture d in M e xic o . Thus, he is not e ntitle d

to C AT re l ie f. Se e W akka ry v. Holde r, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th C ir. 2009); Alm a ghz ar v. Gonz a le s, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th C ir. 2006); Singh v. Gonz a le s, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th C ir. 2006). Pe tition DENIED.

1 1 Se e Gorm le y v. Ashc roft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th C ir. 2004); Rostom ia n v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th C ir. 2000).

1 2 Se e Ha lim

v. Holde r, 590 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C ir. 2009).

5