Court Opinion

ID: 9396679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 16:00:53.93495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:17.951197
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAY 23 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REYNA MARQUEZ GARCIA; ABIMAEL                   No. 22-688
EMIGDIO MARQUEZ; CARLOS                         Agency Nos.
EMIGDIO MARQUEZ; JOSUE                          A208-587-540
MARQUEZ GARCIA,                                 A208-587-541
                                                A208-587-542
             Petitioners,
                                                A208-587-543
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                             Submitted May 19, 2023 **
                                Phoenix, Arizona

Before: NGUYEN, COLLINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

      Lead Petitioner Reyna Marquez Garcia; her adult son, Abimael Emigdio

Marquez; and her two minor children (collectively, “petitioners”) petition for

review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting

      *
            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).
and affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying asylum, withholding

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the agency’s factual

findings for substantial evidence, see Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626,

632 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny the petition for review.

      The agency properly rejected petitioners’ applications for asylum and

withholding of removal. 1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding

that petitioners did not demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future

persecution because their claim is based only on generalized criminal violence

in Mexico and fails to establish an individualized risk of harm. Petitioners did

not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution because they

did not suffer mistreatment in Mexico, did not identify any specific groups or

individuals that might harm them in the future, and acknowledged that their fear

of future harm is based on generalized violence in Mexico. See Singh v. INS,

134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[T]o establish a well-founded fear,

petitioner cannot simply prove that there exists a generalized or random

possibility of persecution; she must show that she is at particular risk—that her

predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by her fellow

citizens.”) (cleaned up and citation omitted).

      PETITION DENIED.

1
  The IJ also denied petitioners’ CAT claim, but petitioners did not challenge
that determination before the BIA, nor do they challenge it in this court.

                                        2