Court Opinion

ID: 3199265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-29 20:01:10.281065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:13.046015
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 29 2016

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL SANCHEZ GOMEZ, AKA                        No. 13-74028
Sergio E. Meza,
                                                 Agency No. A077-197-850
              Petitioner,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

              Respondent.

            On Petition for Review of an Immigration Judge’s Decision

                       Argued and Submitted March 9, 2016
                              Pasadena, California

Before: CLIFTON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,** Senior District
Judge.

      Manuel Sanchez-Gomez appeals the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) determination

under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution

or torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, see Villa-Anguiano v.

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
       **
             The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Holder, 727 F.3d 873, 875 (9th Cir. 2013); Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694 F.3d 955,

958 (9th Cir. 2012), and review the IJ’s factual determinations for substantial

evidence, see Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, — F.3d — (9th Cir. 2016).

      Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Sanchez-Gomez failed

to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution on account of a protected

ground, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c), because the evidence demonstrates that the

kidnappers targeted Sanchez-Gomez based on his perceived wealth, which “will

not support a finding of persecution within the meaning of the [INA],” In re S-V-,

22 I. & N. Dec. 1306, 1310 (B.I.A. 2000).

      Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Sanchez-Gomez

failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture “inflicted by or at the

instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other

person acting in an official capacity.” Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th

Cir. 2003) (emphasis omitted) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1)). No evidence

here demonstrates that a government official had “awareness of [torturous] activity

and thereafter breach[ed] his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such

activity.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(7). Evidence that a government has been generally

ineffective in investigating or preventing crime does not suffice to show

acquiescence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2013).

                                           2
      We also deny Sanchez-Gomez’s motion for judicial notice of newspaper

articles that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                           3