NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOEL LOPEZ-MUNOZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-1702

Agency No.

A201-020-673

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of an 

Immigration Judge

Argued and Submitted February 7, 2024

Phoenix, Arizona

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

Joel Lopez-Munoz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a 

determination by an immigration judge (“IJ”) under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g) that he 

does not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and, therefore, 

is not entitled to relief from a reinstated order of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Alonso-Juarez v. Garland, 80 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

FEB 26 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-1702

F.4th 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2023). “We review de novo due process challenges to

reasonable fear proceedings.” Zuniga v. Barr, 946 F.3d 464, 466 (9th Cir. 2019). 

We review the factual findings underlying the IJ’s negative reasonable fear 

determination for substantial evidence. Orozco-Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 

774 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition.

1. Lopez-Munoz’s due process claims fail because he has not established 

prejudice for any error that may have arisen when the IJ made his adverse 

credibility finding. See Grigoryan v. Barr, 959 F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th Cir. 2020)

(“To prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings, [a noncitizen] 

must show error and substantial prejudice.” (quoting Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 

1246 (9th Cir. 2000))).

To show prejudice, Lopez-Munoz must allege a “plausible scenario[] in 

which the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” MoralesIzquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 495 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (quoting 

Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998)). He has not done so, as he 

has not established a reasonable possibility of future persecution or torture in 

Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c). Lopez-Munoz fears persecution for refusing to 

join the Zetas Cartel, but resistance to gang membership is not, by itself, a 
3 22-1702

protected ground.1 Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009), abrogated 

on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 

2013) (en banc); see also Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2018)

(finding no basis for withholding of removal in reasonable fear proceeding where 

petitioner did not demonstrate nexus to a protected ground). Nor has Lopez-Munoz

explained how the outcome would be different as to the question whether he faces

a reasonable possibility of torture in Mexico, especially given that he has returned 

to the country several times without incident. In addition, Lopez-Munoz’s brief

does not contest the finding that he could avoid any future encounters with cartel 

members by relocating outside of his hometown. See Tzompantzi-Salazar v. 

Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 705 (9th Cir. 2022).

2. Apart from his due process claims, Lopez-Munoz contends that the IJ did 

not provide “specific and cogent reasons” for finding him not credible during the 

review proceeding. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010).

Without passing on the merits of the IJ’s credibility determination, we disagree that 

he failed to specify his reasoning. The IJ detailed his reasons, including (1) LopezMunoz’s consistent statements to immigration officers that he did not fear return to 

1 Lopez-Munoz forfeited any challenge to the IJ’s determination that he was not or 

would not be harmed on account of a protected ground by failing to raise the issue 

in his opening brief. See Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 

2020).
4 22-1702

Mexico;2(2) his plans to return to his hometown if removed, where cartel members 

could find him; (3) inconsistencies in his 2005 police report and conversations with 

prosecutors; (4) and his prior purchase and use of a counterfeit document to enter 

the United States.

PETITION DENIED.3

2 Any contention that these statements were “off of the record” or not included in 

the administrative record is meritless. The documents on which the IJ relied 

contained sworn statements Lopez-Munoz provided to immigration officials, each 

of which appears in the record produced by the Department of Homeland Security.

3 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The 

motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.