Case Name: Martin Fernandez UNZUETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-16
Citations: 599 F. App'x 782
Docket Number: No. 10-70288
Parties: Martin Fernandez UNZUETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 782–783

Head Matter:
Martin Fernandez UNZUETA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70288.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 10, 2015.
Filed April 16, 2015.
Martin Fernandez Unzueta, Eloy, AZ, Lisa Erin Schwartz, Esquire, Daniel R. Thies, Melville W. Washburn Sidley Austin LLP, Claudia Valenzuela Rivas Keren Zwick, Esquire Chicago, IL, pro se.
Erica Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Sarah L. Vuong, Stephen Elliott, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: REINHARDT, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Martin Fernandez Unzueta petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying relief from removal. For the reasons that follow, we deny the petition.
The parties have framed the main issue as whether Petitioner was convicted of a particularly serious crime, and there have been extensive proceedings and briefing on that topic. Nevertheless, we resolve the case without reaching that question.
1. The immigration judge, whose decision the BIA adopted, did not abuse his discretion in denying asylum on the ground that Petitioner did not warrant relief as a matter of discretion. See generally Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir.2004) (discussing the scope of our review of the BIA's discretionary denial of asylum). Indeed, Petitioner did not challenge, in this court, this alternative ground of decision.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Petitioner does not have an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution warranting withholding of removal. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1229 (9th Cir.2002) (stating the standard of review). The BIA held that Petitioner established past persecution and therefore was entitled to a presumption of future persecution. The BIA next held that the government had met its burden of rebutting that presumption. Although we might not have reached the same result, the record does not "compel a conclusion" that the BIA erred. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2014). The BIA permissibly relied on general changes in Mexico — substantive changes in Mexico regarding the rights of homosexuals and increased protection against homophobic harassment — as well as facts specific to Petitioner — his "repeated voluntary trips to Mexico subsequent to the persecutory incidents." Accordingly, the BIA conducted the necessary "individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect the specific petitioner's situation." Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3,For similar reasons, substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Petition DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.