NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS2 22

- 1702

F.4th 1039, 104 3 (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 petitio n. 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

. ” Morales

Izquierdo 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 establish ed 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 r esistance to gang membership is not , by itself, a3 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) ; se e 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 face s

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

to the country several times without incident . In addition, Lopez

- Mun oz’s brief
does not contest the finding that he could avoi d 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 claim s, Lopez

- Munoz contends that t he 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)

. W ithout passing on the merits of the IJ’s credibility determination, w e disagree that he failed to specify his reasoning

. The IJ detailed his reasons, including (1) Lopez

Munoz’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.