NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGARDO ENRIQUE ESCOBAR 

PACHECO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-70084 

Agency No. A206-353-148 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 8, 2021**

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: NGUYEN, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Edgardo Escobar Pacheco petitions for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s 

* 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

JUL 13 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

“legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Arrey 

v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). As the parties are 

familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition.

1. An applicant for asylum must establish that “membership in a particular 

social group . . . was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the 

applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). To satisfy this nexus requirement, 

Pacheco “must provide direct or circumstantial evidence of his persecutors’ 

motives.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992). 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Pacheco failed to 

demonstrate that he was or will be targeted due to his status as a soccer player. 

There is no evidence that Pacheco was attacked and robbed because he played 

soccer. In fact, a gang member told Pacheco “I don’t know who you are. I don’t 

even know you” during the attack. As for future persecution, Pacheco is no longer 

a professional soccer player and there is no evidence that he would be recognized 

and targeted on that basis (or for being a current mixed martial arts fighter) in 

Honduras. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Pacheco’s 

asylum claim. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(“The lack of a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of [petitioner’s] 
3 

asylum . . . claim[].”).

1

 

2. As with a claim for asylum, to be eligible for withholding of removal, an 

applicant must establish that he has been or likely will be persecuted “on account 

of” a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). To satisfy this nexus 

requirement, an applicant must show that a protected ground is or would be “a 

reason” for past or future persecution, a weaker standard than the “one central 

reason” standard from the asylum context. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 

351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). For the reasons identified above, Pacheco did not 

establish a nexus between past or future persecution and a protected ground, even 

under the less stringent “a reason” standard.

3. To qualify for CAT relief, the applicant must show: (1) “it is more likely 

than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of 

removal,” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); and (2) the torture will be “inflicted by or at the 

instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official . . . or other 

person acting in an official capacity,” id. § 208.18(a)(1). See Garcia-Milian v. 

Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014). Pacheco cited only “generalized 

evidence of violence and crime” that failed to show it is more likely than not he 

1 Because the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum on the 

merits, it did not address the IJ’s determination that Pacheco is time-barred from 

applying for asylum. We thus cannot reach this alternative ground. See Arrey, 916 

F.3d at 1157 (“We cannot affirm the BIA on a ground upon which it did not rely.” 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 
4 

would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if 

returned to Honduras. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 

2010). Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT 

protection.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.