NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR ALFONSO MONZON

CAMPOS, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 19

- 70064 Agency No. A087

- 764

- 491

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of an

Immigration Judge Submitted March 8, 2022 * * Phoenix, Arizona Before: PAEZ, CLIFTON, and WATFORD , Circuit Judges

. Hector Alfonso Monzon

- Campos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of an immigration judge (IJ) upholding an asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination. We deny the petition for review.

* 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

MAR 16 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALSPage 2 of 4

1. The proceedings before the IJ did not violate Monzon

- Campos’s due process rights. A lthough non

- citizens in reasonable fear proceedings are entitled to due process protections, they are not entitled to all of the same protections granted to persons not previously removed. Bartolome v. Sessions , 904 F.3d 803, 812 (9th Cir. 2018). The IJ conducts a de novo review of the asylum officer’s determination , and n on - citizens are not entitled to present new evidence or testimony in the IJ hearing. Alvarado

- Herrera v. Garland , 993 F.3d 1187, 1195 (9th Cir. 2021).
Monzon

- Campos contends that the IJ failed to conduct a de novo review and to elicit sufficient testimony

. However , at the outset of the hearing , the IJ stated that he would review the asylum officer’s decision and reverse it if he disagreed. Nothing in the record suggests that his review was not de novo

. Moreover, the IJ questioned Monzon

- Campos about the details of his prior testimony and allowed
him to provide additional testimony. In these proceedings, Monzon

- Campos was not entitled to more.
2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that the harm
Monzon

- Campos feared was not related to a protected ground. A petitioner in a reasonable fear proceeding must show a “reasonable possibility” that he will be persecuted on account of h is race, religion, nationality, membership in a particularPage 3 of 4

social group, or political opinion in the country of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 208. 31(c).
Monzon

- Campos testified that police and criminals repeatedly extorted him for money, sometimes by violent means. But he also testified that the perpetrators of that extortion targeted him purely because they “think I have money.” Monzon

Campos can not demonstrate the required nexus to a protected ground when substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that his fear of harm is based exclusively on a “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft.” Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 10 07, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s rejection of Monzon

- Campos’s claim that the harm he feared was related to his political opinion. Although Monzon

Campos responded “Yes” when the IJ asked whether he would be harmed due to
hi s political opinion, he only made a conclusory allegation of “mistreatment and persecution[.]” The asylum officer’s written analysis concluded that Monzon

Campos “has not established that others would be aware of . . . or that anyone would be inclined to harm him on account of those opinions[,]” which Monzon

Campos “could not define” beyond his attendance at “one protest where the entire village participated” and his expressed opinion on a new president, which have only resulted in “a verbal argument.” Wh en the IJ asked Monzon

- Campos if hePage 4 of 4

had faced problems due to his political opinion, he said that these problems were “[j]ust arguments, words, nothing bigger.”
3. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Monzon

Campos did not qualif

y for protection under the Convention Against Torture. To be entitled to CAT protection, a petitioner must establish that, if returned to his home country, he is more likely than not to face torture by or with the government’s acquiescence. Andrade

- Garci a v. Lynch , 828 F.3d 829, 831, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). Although Monzon

- Campos testified that the police repeatedly stopped him while driving and demanded money, nothing beyond speculation links the police or other government actors to the more violent extort ion he suffered at the hands of criminals. Nor is there anything in his testimony to suggest that he would be singled out for torture on his return.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED .