Court Opinion

ID: 9942287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 19:01:08.285672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:54.786082
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 20 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OMAR MONROY MONROY,                             No. 22-1740
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A206-150-530
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                           Submitted February 16, 2024**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS, BEA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Petitioner Omar Monroy Monroy, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Convention Against Torture. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do

not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as

here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning and adds some of its own reasoning,

the court reviews the BIA’s decision and the parts of the IJ’s decision upon which

BIA relied. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021). The court

reviews factual findings for substantial evidence. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25

F.4th 742, 748 6 (9th Cir. 2022). We deny the petition.

      1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner did

not demonstrate past persecution based on threats or harm to his parents.

“‘[A]lthough harm to a petitioner’s close relatives, friends, or associates may

contribute to a successful showing of past persecution,’ it must be ‘part of a pattern

of persecution closely tied to [the petitioner] himself.’” Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1062

(quoting Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009)). Petitioner was

never personally threatened by the cartel; there is no evidence that the cartel aimed

to harm him by targeting his parents or that the cartel targeted his parents due to

their relationship with him. The evidence did not show that the cartel would

impute any political opinion to him if he returned to Mexico. While the cartel once

threatened Petitioner’s mother’s children, he testified that only his mother’s

younger school-aged children were threatened. Substantial evidence thus supports

                                         2
the BIA’s finding that any past harm to Petitioner’s family was not “closely tied to

[Petitioner] himself.” Id.

      2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner

did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution with a nexus to a

protected ground. The record substantially supports the BIA’s holding that

Petitioner was not a member of six of his thirteen proposed particular social groups

because he is not a former police officer or landowner. The record also supports

the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner did not establish a well-founded fear on

account of his membership in the remaining seven proposed family-based groups

because there is no evidence that the cartel has targeted Petitioner’s parents or

siblings since 2011, or that they would be interested in Petitioner on account of his

family relationships if he returned.

      3. Because Petitioner does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he is

not eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture, he has forfeited that

claim. Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                         3