N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT M AR TIN FER

NANDEZ UNZUETA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , JR . , Attorne y Ge ne ra l , R

e sponde n t . No. 10-70288 Age n c y No. A036-721-032 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d April 10, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, GR AB ER , and HUR

W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. Pe titione r M a

rtin Fe rnande z Unzue ta

pe titions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (" B IA" ) de c ision de ny ing re lie f from re m ova l. For the re a s ons tha

t follow, wede ny the pe tition. 

# F IL ED APR 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).The pa rtie s ha ve fram e d the m a in issuea s whe the r Pe t itione r wa s c o nvic te d of a pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e , a

nd the re have be e n e xte nsive proc e e dings a nd brie fing on tha

t topic . Ne v e rthe le s s, we re solve the c a se without re a c hing tha t que stion. 1. The im m igrat ion judge , whose de c ision theB IA a dopte d, did not a buse his disc re tion in deny ing a sy lum on the ground tha

t Pe titione r did not wa

rrant re lie f a s a m atte r of disc re tion. Se e ge ne ra lly Ka lubi v. Ashc roft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th C ir. 2004) (disc ussing thesc ope of our re vie w of the B IA’ s disc re tiona ry de nia l of a sy lum ). Inde e d, Pe titione r did not c ha lle nge , in this c ourt, this a lte rnative ground of de c ision. 2. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Pe titione r doe s not ha

ve an obje c t ive ly re a sona ble fe ar of future pe rse c ution wa rranting withholding of rem o v a l. Se e Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1229 (9th Ci r. 2002) (stating thesta

nda rd of re vie w). The B IA he ld tha t Pe t itione r e sta

blishe d pa st pe rse c ution a

nd the re fore wa s e ntitle d to a pre sum ption of futurepe rse c ution. The B IA ne x t he ld tha

t the gove rnm e nt ha d m e t its burde n of re butting tha t pre s um ption. Although we

m ight not ha

v e re a c he d the sa

m e re s ult, there c ord doe s not " c om pe l a c onc lusion" tha

t the B IA e rre d . Ga

rc ia v. Holde r, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2014). TheB IA pe rm issibly re lie d on ge n e ra l c ha nge s in 2M e x ic o— substa n tive c ha nge s in M e xic o re ga

rding the rights of homose xua ls a nd inc re a se d prote c tion a ga inst homophobic ha ra ssm e n t— a s we ll a s fa c t s spe c ific to Pe titione r—

his " re pe at e d volunta

ry trips to M e x ic o subse que nt to thepe rse c utory inc i de nts." Ac c ordingly , the B IA c onduc te d the ne c e ssa

ry " individualiz e d a

na ly sis of how c ha

nge d c onditions will a

ffe c t the spe c ific pe titione r’ s situa tion." Garrovilla s v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th C ir. 1998) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om i tte d). 3. For sim i la

r re a s ons, substa

n tia l e vide n c e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . Pe tition DE NIE D.

3