Court Opinion

ID: 9943022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 17:00:40.591873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:59.640822
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             FEB 22 2024
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS ALVARADO-RAMIREZ, AKA                     No.   17-70895
Galvino Barrera Barojas, AKA Jose
Contreras Zaragoza, AKA Luis Garcia-             Agency No. A200-975-936
Vega,

              Petitioner,                        MEMORANDUM*

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                            Submitted October 17, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before:      TASHIMA, COLLINS, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
       Carlos Alvarado-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Alvarado-Ramirez’s application for

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings underlying its

determinations. Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 641–42 (9th Cir. 2021). We

deny the petition for review.

       Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if Alvarado-

Ramirez had otherwise established a well-founded fear of future persecution, he

failed to show that he could not avoid such persecution by relocating within

Mexico. See Hussain, 985 F.3d at 646 (“Even if the standard [for well-founded

fear of persecution] is met, an applicant is still ineligible [for relief] if it would be

reasonable under the circumstances to relocate within the country to avoid future

persecution.”). The BIA properly found that the harm Alvarado-Ramirez fears is

based on a land dispute between his father and brother and that Alvarado-

Ramirez’s assertions that he would experience harm even if he moved “away from

the disputed land” were speculative and unsupported. Alvarado-Ramirez’s reliance

on evidence of other threats or of general violence does not compel a contrary

conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Hussain, 985 F.3d at 649

                                             2
(explaining that an applicant “cannot successfully argue that relocation is

unreasonable because the country at large is subject to generalized violence,”

unless he shows that “he is at risk of country-wide targeted persecution”).

      Alvarado-Ramirez’s contention that the IJ violated the procedural

requirements set out in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011), lacks

merit. The IJ denied Alvarado’s application because his credible testimony did not

show facts sufficient to demonstrate his entitlement to relief, not for lack of

corroboration, and the protections set out in Ren therefore did not apply. See Yali

Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that an

applicant must “satisfy the IJ that her testimony is credible, is persuasive, and

refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate” entitlement to relief; if the

applicant fails to meet this burden, then the IJ has “no obligation to give [the

applicant] an additional opportunity to bolster her case by submitting further

evidence,” and the protections set out in Ren do not apply (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted)).

      The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

      Petition for Review DENIED.

                                            3