Court Opinion

ID: 9377775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 18:00:57.934011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:16.545261
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 8 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERTO ALEJANDRO GARCIA NAVA, No.                     21-70323

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A209-864-872

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted March 6, 2023**
                                Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD, WATFORD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

      Roberto Alejandro Garcia Nava petitions for review of a decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

      *
             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).
                                                                         Page 2 of 3

order denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.

      1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia

Nava did not demonstrate the “clear probability of persecution” necessary for

withholding of removal. Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995). The

record supports the agency’s finding that he had not suffered any past persecution

because Garcia Nava testified that he had never been threatened or harmed while

living in Mexico. Regarding future persecution, the agency had sufficient evidence

to conclude that it is not “more likely than not” that Garcia Nava will be persecuted

if he is removed to Mexico. Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1085–86 (9th Cir.

2021) (citation omitted). Garcia Nava’s testimony and the evidence that he

presented detailing the dangerous conditions in Mexico, especially in his home city

of Acapulco, do not adequately establish that he faces any particularized risk of

persecution. See Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2005). His

claimed fear of persecution is also undermined by the agency’s finding that his

immediate relatives live safely in Acapulco. The record therefore does not compel

the conclusion that Garcia Nava faces a clear probability of persecution if he
                                                                         Page 3 of 3

returns to Mexico. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059–60 (9th Cir.

2021).1

      2. The record does not compel reversal of the agency’s denial of CAT

protection. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011). For a

successful CAT claim, the applicant must show that it is more likely than not he

would be tortured upon return to his homeland with the consent or acquiescence of

the government. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir.

2014). “Torture is more severe than persecution.” Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136,

1144 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Because substantial

evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that it is not more likely than not that

Garcia Nava will suffer persecution if removed to Mexico, the same is true of the

agency’s determination that Garcia Nava failed to establish that it is “more likely

than not that he would be tortured if returned to Mexico.”

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

1
  Garcia Nava’s request that we remand for the agency to consider the COVID-19
pandemic’s effect on his claim is more appropriately addressed through a motion
to reopen. See Meza-Vallejos v. Holder, 669 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A
motion to reopen is a traditional procedural mechanism . . . to give aliens a means
to provide new information relevant to their cases to the immigration authorities.”
(citation and quotation marks omitted)).