Court Opinion

ID: 9409960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 21:01:12.905024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.508883
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             JUL 19 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAVIER MARTINEZ-RIVAS,                           No.     22-955

              Petitioner,                        Agency No.
                                                 A205-316-096
 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                             Submitted July 17, 2023**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Javier Martinez-Rivas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

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

Judge (“IJ”)’s decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, protection under

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. We have

      *
             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).
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA issues its own

opinion, “[w]e review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that it

expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion.” Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th

Cir. 2012). We review the BIA’s factual findings regarding asylum, withholding

of removal, and CAT protection for substantial evidence, affirming “unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”

Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland, 62 F.4th 1186, 1194, 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2023)

(citation omitted). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural

history of the case, we need not recount it here. We deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review.

      1. We deny the petition as to Martinez-Rivas’s asylum claim because he did

not challenge the IJ’s denial of asylum before the BIA. In his petition for review,

Martinez-Rivas does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived his

asylum claim by failing to preserve it before the BIA. The BIA thus properly

dismissed Rodriguez Jimenez’s asylum claim as waived. Martinez-Serrano v.

I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).

      2. As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

determination that Martinez-Rivas did not establish a “clear probability of

persecution” based on his relationship to his brother. Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d

                                          2
1073, 1085–86 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Korablina v. I.N.S., 158 F.3d 1038, 1045

(9th Cir. 1998)). Martinez-Rivas has not challenged the IJ’s finding that his

testimony about why he feared to return to Mexico was not credible, so he must

rely on documentary evidence in the record. The IJ did find credible that

Martinez-Rivas’s brother, Alejandro, was a federal drug enforcement officer in

Mexico, and the BIA recognized that, based on his occupation, Alejandro faced

violence and threats to himself and his family in Mexico. The BIA also recognized

that letters from another brother, Gerardo, and Martinez-Rivas’s mother indicated

that Gerardo fears retaliation based on Alejandro’s occupation and that both

Gerardo and their motion have been victims of general crime in Mexico. But, as

the BIA noted, the letters do not indicate that any family members have been

harmed as a result of Alejandro’s occupation, see Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25

F.4th 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2022), and reports of violence against law enforcement do

not supply evidence of an individualized risk that Martinez-Rivas would be harmed

in Mexico, see Sarkar v. Garland, 39 F.4th 611, 622–23 (9th Cir. 2022).

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that

Martinez-Rivas did not establish a clear probability of persecution based on his

relationship to his brother, and we deny this part of the petition.

      3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Martinez-

                                           3
Rivas did not qualify for CAT protection. As discussed above, Martinez-Rivas

must rely on the documentary evidence in the record, and the BIA properly

determined that the letters from his mother and Gerardo and the reports of violence

against law enforcement do not prove it is more likely than not that Martinez-Rivas

will be individually targeted for torture if he returns to Mexico. See, e.g.,

Ruiz-Colmenares, 25 F.4th at 751 (denying review where petitioner “offered no

evidence showing he faces any particularized risk of torture”). We therefore deny

this part of the petition.

       4. Martinez-Rivas challenges the IJ’s determination that he is ineligible for

cancellation of removal because he failed to demonstrate that removal would result

in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States-citizen

children. We lack jurisdiction over this claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,

424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Although we

retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims, 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Martinez-Rivas’s arguments the IJ failed to give sufficient

weight to his evidence or based its decision on conjecture are not supported by the

record. See Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“To be colorable in this context, . . .

the claim must have some possible validity.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We therefore dismiss this part of the petition.

                                           4
PETITION DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

                         5