N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AR IO ANTONIO GAR C IA-GAR C IA,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 21-70600 Age n c y No. A205-489-457
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 M ay

8, 2023 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , C LIFTON, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s . M ario Ga rc ia -Garc i a , a

native and c itiz e n of M e x ic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de c i sion de ny i ng his a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ) c la im s . The



# F IL ED MAY10 2023 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B IA dism isse d Ga rc ia -Garc ia ’ s a

ppe a l of the Im

m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd C A T prote c t ion. W e de ny the pe tition. W e re vie w the fa c tua l findings tha t a pe titione r ha s not e sta

blishe d e ligibility for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, or C AT prote c tion for substa ntia l e v ide nc e . Planc a rteSauc e da v
. Garland , 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th C ir. 2022). “ To pre va il unde r the substa

ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd, the pe titione r ‘ m

ust show tha

t the e vide nc e not only supports, but c o m

pe l s the c onc lusion tha

t the se findings a

n d de c isions a

re e rrone ous.’ ” Dav ila v . Barr , 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th C i r. 2020) (quoting C ordon-Garc ia v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th C ir. 2000)). Our re vie w is limite d to the B IA’ s de c ision e xc e pt whe re the B IA e xpre s sly a dopte d the IJ’ s opinion. Id.

“ Whe re , a s he re , the B IA a gre e s with theIJ de c ision a n d a lso a dds its own
re a s oning, we re vie wthe de c i sion of the B IA and thosepa rts of the IJ’ s de c ision upon whic h it re lie s.” Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1027–28 (9th C ir. 2019). W e do not ha

ve jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de n ia l of his a pplic at ion for
a sy lum
. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(3). Garc ia -Garc i a did not file

his pe tition within the o ne -y e a

r statutory

lim i t for a sy lum

c la i m s. Se e id. § 1158(a )(2)(b). B e fore the B IA, Ga rc ia -Garc ia

c onc e de d the IJ’ s finding tha t his a pplic ation for a sy l um

wa s
2tim e ba

rre d. He doe s not a

rgue tha t c ha nge d or e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s e xc use his la

te ne ss. S e e id. § 1158(a )(2)(d). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252 to re vie w Ga rc ia -Garc ia ’ s withholding of rem o v a l a nd C AT c la im s. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the de nia l of withholding of rem ova l. Ga rc ia -Garc ia

argue s tha

t the IJ fa ile d to prope rly
c onside r his fe ar of ha

rm ba se d on his m e m

be rship in a pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group— nam e ly , im

m igra nts re turning to M e x ic o from the Unite d State s. B ut both the IJ a nd the B IA c onside re d his c la im and disc u sse d the re le va

nt c a se la w . Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the IJ a nd B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t his propose d soc ia l group of im

m igra nts re turning to M e xic o is not c ogniz a ble . Just a s in De lgadoOrtiz v . Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ), whe re we he ld tha t a group of “ re turning M e xic ans from the Unite d State s ” wa s not na rrowly de fine d, he re too thepropose d group is overbroa d . Furthe r, the B IA did not e rr in finding tha

t Ga rc ia -Garc ia

did not suffe r pa s t pe rse c ution. Prior to his im m igration to the Unite d State s in 2001, ga ng m e m b e rs atta c ke d

him a s he wa s re turning hom e from sc hool. He te stifie d

tha t the y ta rge te d him

be c a use he wa s not a

m e m be r of a ga ng. B ut the re c o rd doe s not show tha t the ga ng’ s a ssa ult a m ounte d to m ore tha

n c rim ina lly

m otiva te d viole nc e . Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ An a lie n’ s de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim ina ls m otiva

t e d by
3the ft or ra

ndom viole nc e by

ga ng m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a

prote c te d ground.” ). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the de nia l of Ga

rc ia -Garc ia ’ s C AT c la im
. His e xpe rie nc e with ga

ng viole nc e did not a

m ount to pa st torture . Zhang v
. Ashc roft , 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th C ir. 2004) (pe r c uriam ) (“ Torture is a n e x tre m e form of c rue l a

nd inhum an t

re atm e nt a

nd doe s not inc lude le sse r form s of c rue l, inhum an or de gra ding tre atm e nt.” (inte rna l quota tion a nd c i tations omitte d)). M ore o ve r, “ [b] e c a

use the B IA c ould re a sona bly c onc lude tha

t [the pe titione r’ s] pa st ha rm did not rise

to the le ve l of pe rse c ution, it ne c e ssa rily fa lls short of the de finition of torture .” Sharma v . Garland , 9 F.4th 1052, 1067 (9th C ir. 2021). Garc ia doe s not offe r a dditiona l e vide nc e be y o nd c urre nt c ountry c onditions to
e sta blish thepossibility

of future torture . Se e Dhital v . Muk ase y , 532 F.3d 1044, 1051–52 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

4