Court Opinion

ID: 9940538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 18:01:26.632828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:58.813649
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 14 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN DOMINGUEZ-ROBLES,*                       No. 22-1083
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A070-123-745
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM**
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of an
                                Immigration Judge

                           Submitted February 9, 2024***
                                Phoenix, Arizona

Before: BERZON, HURWITZ, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

      Martin Dominguez-Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

      *
              The Clerk shall edit the case name and caption to reflect the spelling
of the petitioner’s last name—Dominguez-Robles—used in the agency decision on
review and in petitioner’s opening brief.
      **
             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).
review of the determination of an immigration judge (“IJ”) that he does not have a

reasonable fear of persecution or torture. We review the IJ’s negative reasonable

fear determination for substantial evidence. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828

F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252,

see Alonso-Juarez v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2023), and we deny

the petition.

      1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that the particular

social group proposed by Dominguez is not socially distinct. See Diaz-Torres v.

Barr, 963 F.3d 976, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2020). Neither the record evidence nor

Dominguez’s testimony compels the conclusion that individuals who cooperate

with law enforcement are viewed as socially distinct within Mexican society.

Dominguez did not participate in any legal proceedings or file a formal report with

the police, and the Mexican witness protection program he identified would not

extend to him or his proposed social group. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d

1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that “the absence of society-specific

evidence of social distinction”—including the lack of “special legal protection” for

those who make reports to the police—supported the conclusion that the proposed

group was not socially distinct).

      2. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Dominguez

failed to establish a reasonable possibility that he would be tortured in Mexico with

                                        2
the acquiescence of the government. First, the record evidence supports the IJ’s

finding that the Mexican government is taking steps to address violence and

corruption caused by organized crime groups. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755

F.3d 1026, 1035 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that government efforts to combat crime

and violence supported a finding that there was no government acquiescence even

when those efforts “ha[d] not achieved the desired goals of resolving crimes and

protecting citizens”). Second, Dominguez’s testimony about the potential

inefficacy of local police efforts to protect him does not constitute “significant

evidence establishing government complicity in the criminal activity,” especially

where, as here, he also testified that local police would try to help him and that

they have previously responded to a violent crime and apprehended the suspect.

Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836.

      The motion and supplemental motion for stay of removal are DENIED as

moot.1

      PETITION DENIED.

1
 The temporary stay of removal shall remain in effect until issuance of the
mandate. See General Order 6.4(c).

                                         3