N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAVIER HER NANDEZ-C OR ONA, Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 21-603 Age n c y No. A205-699-970 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 . Javie r He rnande z -C orona , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of a

B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing the de nia l of his a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ). The B IA dism isse d He rnande z -C orona ’ 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 rem o v a l, a nd C AT re lie f. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. 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 re lie f 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 i la v . Barr , 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th C ir. 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. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of a sy lum and withholding of rem o v a l. For both a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l, pe titione rs m ust e s ta blish tha t the ir propose d soc ia l group is: “ (1) c om pose d of m e m

be rs who sha re a c om m o n im m uta ble c ha ra c te ristic , (2) de fine d with pa rtic ula rity , a n d (3) soc i a lly distinc t within the

soc ie ty in que stion.” C

ondeQue v e do v
. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th C ir. 2020) (inte rna l quota tion a nd c ita tion omitte d). The B IA found tha t He rnande z -C o rona ’ s thre e propose d soc ia l groups—“ M e xic an de porte e 2who ha s long-sta nding tie s to theUnite d State s,” “ re turning M e xic an who ha s live d in the Unite d State s m o re tha n twe nty y e ars,” and “ m a le M e xic an re turne e with long-te rm Unite d State s re side nc e ”

— we re not soc ia l ly

distinc t in M e xic an soc ie ty . The c ountry

c onditions re

ports in there c ord e sta

blish tha t de porte d individuals
m ay be ta rge ts for ga

ng a c tivity , the ft, a

nd viole nc e . B ut He rnande z -C orona did not providesuffic ie nt e vide n c e tha t M e xic an soc ie ty vie ws this group a s distinc t. Se e N guy e n v . Barr , 983 F.3d 1099, 1104 (9th C ir. 2020) (“ Nguy e n be ars the burde n of proving thea lle g e d ‘ pa rtic ula r soc ia l group’ is pa

rtic ula riz e d, soc ia lly distinc t, and

ba se d on a

n im m uta ble c ha ra c te ristic . He fa ile d to sa tisfy tha t burde n .” ). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the de nia l of C A T prote c tion. He rnande z -C orona

argue s tha

t his e xpe rt re port e sta

blishe s a gre at e r tha

n 50% like lihood of future torture be c a use it shows tha

t the polic e willfully ignore c rim e . R e c ord e v ide nc e doe s de m onstra te ge ne ra l polic e ine ffe c tive ne ss in a ddre s sing ga ng a c tivity

and viole nc e towa

rds de porte d individuals. B ut He rna nde z -C orona ha s not shown tha

t t he re is a pa rtic ula riz e d risk to him
. Se e , e .g. , TzompantziSalazar v . Garland

, 32 F.4th 696, 706–07 (9th C ir. 2022) (“ [T] h e c ountry c onditions evide nc e a c knowle dge d c rim e an d polic e c orruption in M e x i c o ge ne ra lly , a s we ll a s highe r ra te s in Tijua na . B ut the e vide nc e fa ils to show tha t 3Pe titione r fa c e s a pa rtic ula riz e d , ongoing risk of future torture .” ); Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th C ir. 2017) (“ Polic e ine ffe c t ive ne ss is not enough to e s ta b lish a n e ntitle m e nt to re lie f . . . .” ). The re c ord thus doe s not c om p e l a finding tha

t He rnande z -C orona

would m ore like ly

tha n not be torture d with the c onse nt or a c quie s c e nc e of a public offic ia l. Se e 8 C . F.R . § 208.16(c )(2). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4