Court Opinion

ID: 9402707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 17:01:57.087604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:02.041459
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUN 16 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS RIMALDO PEDRAZA                           No. 22-361
PIMENTEL,                                       Agency No.
                                                A208-157-094
             Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted June 12, 2023 **
                               Portland, Oregon

Before: RAWLINSON and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District
Judge.***

      Petitioner Jesus Rimaldo Pedraza Pimentel petitions this court for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of

the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Petitioner’s applications for asylum,

      *
            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).
      ***
            The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). The BIA cited Matter of

Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and did not express any

disagreement with the IJ’s decision. Therefore, we review the IJ’s decision as if

it were the BIA’s. Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009). For

the reasons below, we deny the petition.

      1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding of

removal because the record does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner has a

well-founded fear of future persecution or faces a clear probability of future

persecution, as required to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of

removal. 1 When determining whether Petitioner experienced past persecution,

the IJ should have considered the surveillance of Petitioner and the forced

recruitment of his brother from the perspective of a 15-year-old. See

Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2007). But, even

assuming Petitioner’s experiences rose to the level of past persecution when

taking Petitioner’s age into account, Petitioner would not benefit from a

rebuttable presumption of future persecution. See Garcia-Martinez v. Ashcroft,

371 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2004). In Parada v. Sessions, the court explained

1
 We review the agency’s factual findings, including whether Petitioner
experienced past persecution or has shown a likelihood of future persecution,
for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059
(9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

                                        2
that “[t]he presumption only applies to fear of persecution on the basis of the

original claim.” 902 F.3d 901, 911–12 (9th Cir. 2018). At his merits hearing,

Petitioner testified that he believed the cartels surveilled him in order to control

his brother; he did not believe that the cartels were trying to recruit him. On

appeal, Petitioner frames his fear of future persecution solely in terms of his

own potential recruitment by cartels. Because Petitioner’s fear of future

persecution is distinct from his alleged past persecution, any presumption of a

likelihood of future persecution would not apply.

      Even if Petitioner could benefit from a rebuttable presumption of future

persecution, the record clearly rebuts that presumption. Petitioner’s parents and

siblings (including two brothers) continue to live in his hometown and have not

been targeted by cartels. And both Petitioner and his brother Alberto are now

older than those the cartels tend to recruit.

      2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of relief under

CAT because the record does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner would

more likely than not be tortured if he were to return to Mexico. Plancarte

Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 834 (9th Cir. 2022). The record shows that

Petitioner fears general criminal violence and lawlessness in Mexico, which is

not enough to show entitlement to CAT relief. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,

600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                          3