Court Opinion

ID: 9408535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 23:01:04.102058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:44.477968
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUL 12 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS HEREDIA-BETANCOURT,                   No. 22-1618
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A079-769-440
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted July 10, 2023**
                              Seattle, Washington

Before: GRABER, GOULD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Petitioner Jose Luis Heredia-Betancourt timely seeks review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of relief from removal. Reviewing de

novo the BIA’s legal conclusions and reviewing for substantial evidence its

factual findings, Perez-Portillo v. Garland, 56 F.4th 788, 792 (9th Cir. 2022),

we deny the petition.

      *
            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).
      1. The BIA permissibly concluded that Petitioner’s proposed particular

social group—“Mexican nationals returning from abroad living in the U.S. for a

lengthy time who are perceived to have money”—is not cognizable. See, e.g.,

Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that

the proposed particular social group of “imputed wealthy Americans” in Mexico

was not cognizable); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1150–52 (9th

Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (holding that the proposed particular social group of

“Mexicans returning home from the United States” was not cognizable).

Because Petitioner failed to establish a causal nexus to a statutorily protected

ground, the BIA appropriately rejected Petitioner’s claims for asylum and

withholding of removal. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012,

1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (“For both asylum and withholding claims, a petitioner

must prove a causal nexus between one of her statutorily protected

characteristics and either her past harm or her objectively tenable fear of future

harm.”). We need not, and do not, reach the BIA’s alternative holding that

Petitioner failed to file a timely asylum application.

      2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner

does not qualify for relief under the Convention Against Torture because he

failed to establish that he would more likely than not be subjected to torture

inflicted by governmental officials or with their acquiescence. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(2). Petitioner presented no evidence of a particularized fear of

torture and, although the Mexican government’s efforts to combat torture have

                                         2                                   22-1618
not been very effective, Petitioner has not shown that governmental officials

would participate or acquiesce in torture against him. See Garcia-Milian v.

Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Nor does evidence that a

government has been generally ineffective in preventing or investigating

criminal activities raise an inference that public officials are likely to acquiesce

in torture, absent evidence of corruption or other inability or unwillingness to

oppose criminal organizations.”). Although the evidence of country conditions

suggests some instances of corruption in Mexico or an inability to oppose

criminal organizations in some contexts, the record does not compel the

conclusion that Petitioner in particular, more likely than not, would be the

victim of such deficiencies or any other situation involving governmental

acquiescence in torture.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                          3                                    22-1618