Court Opinion

ID: 9839941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 18:01:12.142074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:43.003605
License: Public Domain

FOR PUBLICATION

     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
          FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC BLANCAS HERMOSILLO,                   No. 18-71220

                 Petitioner,                Agency No.
                                           A078-086-020
v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                OPINION
General,

                 Respondent.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of an
                   Immigration Judge

        Argued and Submitted on October 3, 2022
                  Seattle, Washington

                Filed September 14, 2023

Before: William A. Fletcher, Mark J. Bennett, and Jennifer
                 Sung, Circuit Judges.

                Opinion by Judge Sung;
            Partial Dissent by Judge Bennett
2                    HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND

                          SUMMARY*

                          Immigration

    Granting Eric Blancas Hermosillo’s petition for review
of an immigration judge’s decision upholding an asylum
officer’s negative reasonable fear determination following
the reinstatement of a prior order of removal, and remanding,
the panel held that Blancas Hermosillo’s own credible
testimony sufficiently established a reasonable fear of
persecution or torture to warrant a hearing before an IJ on
the merits of his claims for relief.
    Blancas Hermosillo credibly testified that three cartels
seek to control the region around his hometown in Mexico,
and Autodefensa, a local community defense group, fights
to prevent cartel influence. As part of the conflict, the cartels
carry out weekly attacks to kill Autodefensa members, and
target families of community defense members to erode
resistance to cartel control. One of Blancas Hermosillo’s
uncles is the leader of Autodefensa; his father and three other
uncles are or were (before they were killed) members.
Blancas Hermosillo fears that, if removed to Mexico, the
cartels will discover his identity as a relative of Autodefensa
members and harm or kill him.
    The IJ determined that Blancas Hermosillo did not show
a causal link between his own family ties and potential
persecution because the record showed only that the cartels
targeted Blancas Hermosillo’s uncles because of their own
membership in Autodefensa, not their familial relationship

*
 This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
                    HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND                       3

to Autodefensa members. The panel concluded that the IJ’s
decision suffered from two problems. First, it ignored the
possibility that the cartels acted with mixed motives, where
Blancas Hermosillo credibly testified that he believed the
cartels targeted one of his uncles both because of that uncle’s
own membership in Autodefensa, and to deter Blancas
Hermosillo’s other uncle who was the leader of
Autodefensa. The panel wrote that these circumstances
supported the inference that Blancas Hermosillo’s uncle was
killed, at least in part, because of his relationship to the other
uncle. Second, the panel explained that Blancas Hermosillo
need not show that his uncles experienced persecution on the
basis of their family membership in order to show that
Blancas Hermosillo himself might experience persecution as
a relative of Autodefensa members.
    The panel rejected the government’s argument that
Blancas Hermosillo’s claim is too speculative to establish a
reasonable fear of persecution or torture, explaining that
Blancas Hermosillo’s evidence is exactly what one might
expect at this preliminary screening stage: a credible account
that cartels target relatives of Autodefensa members
supported by testimonial evidence and backed by the
representation that additional evidence exists to support
those assertions.      The panel explained that Blancas
Hermosillo’s credible assertions of cartel knowledge,
practices, and motivations are sufficient evidence of such
facts and must be accepted as true, that any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that Blancas
Hermosillo would face a reasonable possibility of
persecution because of his family relationship to
Autodefensa members, and that a public official would
acquiesce to his torture. The panel remanded with
instructions for the agency to provide Blancas Hermosillo
4                   HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND

with a hearing before an IJ on the merits of his claims for
withholding of removal and CAT protection.
    Dissenting in part, Judge Bennett agreed with the
majority’s decision to grant the petition as to the IJ’s finding
that Blancas Hermosillo lacks a reasonable fear of torture,
but disagreed that the evidence compelled the conclusion
that there is a reasonable possibility Blancas Hermosillo
would be persecuted on account of his familial relationship
to Autodefensa members. Judge Bennett wrote that the
majority reached the opposite conclusion by failing to apply
the required deferential substantial evidence standard.

                         COUNSEL

Zulu Ali (argued), Law Offices of Zulu Ali, Riverside,
California, for Petitioner.
Joanna L. Watson (argued), Trial Attorney; Anthony P.
Nicastro, Assistant Director; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.
                   HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND                     5

                         OPINION

SUNG, Circuit Judge:

    In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
reinstated a 1999 removal order entered against Petitioner
Eric Blancas Hermosillo. Because Blancas Hermosillo
expressed a fear of returning to Mexico, an asylum officer
conducted a reasonable fear screening interview to
determine whether Blancas Hermosillo should be given the
opportunity to establish his claims at a merits hearing before
an Immigration Judge (IJ) on his application for withholding
of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). The asylum officer determined, and an IJ affirmed,
that Blancas Hermosillo did not show a reasonable
possibility of persecution or torture were he to be removed.
Consequently, Blancas Hermosillo never had the
opportunity to present additional evidence of his claims at a
merits hearing.
    Blancas Hermosillo now petitions for review of the IJ’s
negative reasonable fear determination at the screening
stage. We agree with Blancas Hermosillo that his own
credible testimony is enough at this initial stage to establish
a reasonable fear of persecution and torture; substantial
evidence does not support the agency determination
otherwise. We grant the petition for review and remand so
that Blancas Hermosillo may receive a merits hearing.
                              I.
    Blancas Hermosillo, a native and citizen of Mexico,
applied for admission to the United States in 1999. DHS
served him a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, and
he was deported the following day. Blancas Hermosillo later
6                  HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND

reentered without inspection. In 2018, he was arrested by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and DHS
reinstated his 1999 removal order.
    Congress authorized reinstatement of prior removal
orders to provide the government a streamlined process for
removing noncitizens who unlawfully return to the United
States after a previous removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). The
statute limits a noncitizen’s ability to challenge a reinstated
removal order; it provides that the prior order “is not subject
to being reopened or reviewed, the [noncitizen] is not
eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter,
and the [noncitizen] shall be removed under the prior order
at any time after the reentry.” Id.
    Although the reinstatement statute on its face bars
noncitizens from seeking immigration relief, DHS
regulations carve out an exception: noncitizens who express
a fear of persecution or torture in their country of removal
may apply for withholding of removal or protection under
the Convention Against Torture. 8 C.F.R. § 208.31. When a
noncitizen expresses that kind of fear, an asylum officer
must perform a screening interview to determine whether the
noncitizen’s fear is reasonable. 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.31(b) & (c),
1208.31(b) & (c).
    Noncitizens show a reasonable fear of persecution if they
establish “a reasonable possibility that [they] would be
persecuted on account of [their] race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group or political
opinion.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.31(c), 1208.31(c). Noncitizens
show a reasonable fear of torture if they establish “a
reasonable possibility that [they] would be tortured in the
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.31(c), 1208.31(c).
Under CAT regulations, a person must demonstrate that the
                      HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND                          7

torture would be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with
the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity.” Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332
F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.18(a)(1)) (emphasis omitted). “A reasonable
possibility” requires a noncitizen to show “at least a ten
percent chance of being persecuted or tortured.” Alvarado-
Herrera v. Garland, 993 F.3d 1187, 1195–96 (9th Cir.
2021).
    Consistent with the preliminary nature of a screening
interview, noncitizens who show a reasonable possibility of
persecution or torture do not automatically receive
substantive immigration relief. See Alvarado-Herrera, 993
F.3d at 1194–95 (recognizing that the limited purpose of
screening interviews is “to quickly identify and resolve
frivolous claims to protection”). Instead, they receive a
merits hearing before an IJ, where they then will receive
“full consideration” of their claim. 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.31(e),
1208.31(e). At that hearing, noncitizens bear the burden of
proving entitlement to withholding of removal or relief
under CAT by showing that they will more likely than not
be persecuted or tortured should they be removed. 8 CFR
§§ 208.16(b) & (c).
    Blancas Hermosillo expressed to immigration officials
his fear that cartels would persecute and torture him if he
returned to Mexico. Consistent with regulatory
requirements, he received a screening interview with an
asylum officer 39 days after his arrest.1 Blancas Hermosillo
testified in person about his fear. His counsel attended by

1
  Blancas Hermosillo first appeared before an asylum officer 16 days
after his arrest, but the asylum officer twice continued Blancas
Hermosillo’s screening interview so that his attorney could be present.
8                   HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND

phone but did not speak. The asylum officer found him
credible.
    At the time of the screening interview, Blancas
Hermosillo was detained without bail, with limited ability to
access documents or to gather evidence. At several points
throughout his immigration proceedings, Blancas
Hermosillo represented that he could produce additional
evidence supporting his claims at a merits hearing,
including, for example, pictures of what happened to his
family members and letters from his relatives.
    During the screening interview, Blancas Hermosillo
credibly testified to the following facts. Three cartels seek to
control the region around Blancas Hermosillo’s hometown.
Autodefensa, a local community defense group, fights to
prevent cartel influence. As part of the conflict, the cartels
carry out weekly attacks to kill Autodefensa members. One
of Blancas Hermosillo’s uncles, J.V.V., is the leader of
Autodefensa; his father and three other uncles are or were
(before they were killed) members.
    Each of Blancas Hermosillo’s uncles has experienced
violence as a result of their Autodefensa membership. His
uncle J.V.V. was attacked by the cartels while driving in a
caravan. His uncle G.H. was burned alive by the cartels,
which Blancas Hermosillo believes was to deter J.V.V. as
the leader of Autodefensa, because of G.H’s own
Autodefensa membership, or both. Blancas Hermosillo’s
uncle J.B.G. was shot eight times while patrolling the area to
defend against cartel violence. Finally, his uncle E.B.G. was
disappeared after a conflict with armed men.
    Blancas Hermosillo described how the cartels target
families of community defense members to erode resistance
to cartel control: “what [the cartels] do is target and kill the
                    HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND                     9

family members of the Autodefensa team to use that fear to
discourage them from doing what they are doing.” Although
Blancas Hermosillo was unsure of exactly why the cartels
targeted his uncle G.H., he testified to his general belief that
cartels target family members of his uncle J.V.V. in
particular because J.V.V. is the leader of Autodefensa: “they
will use any member of the family in order to obligate or
force my uncle to stop fighting them.”
    Blancas Hermosillo fears that, if he is removed to
Mexico, the cartels will discover his identity as a relative of
Autodefensa members “right away” and harm or kill him.
Based on information from his family, he believes that the
cartels’ connections allow them to learn when people are
deported from the United States. Blancas Hermosillo also
believes that many people who are deported are kidnapped
and killed by the cartels shortly after returning to Mexico.
    Blancas Hermosillo testified that the local police would
be unwilling to protect him from the cartels. His family
reported cartel violence to the police around 2012, but the
police did not want to get involved because they “were afraid
that they would also be killed.” Blancas Hermosillo’s family
did not report cartel violence again to the police because of
the widespread belief that the police collaborate with the
cartels. Blancas Hermosillo is aware of a family whose
father reported a car theft to the police and subsequently was
kidnapped by cartels. Blancas Hermosillo believes the police
turned the man over to the cartels because the cartels told the
man to stop complaining to the police or they would kill him.
    Although the asylum officer found Blancas Hermosillo
credible, the officer determined that Blancas Hermosillo did
not establish a reasonable fear of persecution because the
harm he feared did not have a nexus to a protected ground.
10                 HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND

Blancas Hermosillo claimed that the cartels would target him
because of his relationship to several Autodefensa members.
But the asylum officer reasoned that each of Blancas
Hermosillo’s uncles experienced violence because of their
own involvement in Autodefensa instead of their familial
relationship to Blancas Hermosillo’s uncle J.V.V. The
asylum officer concluded that Blancas Hermosillo similarly
could not show that any harm he might experience would be
because of his relationship to J.V.V.
    The asylum officer determined that Blancas Hermosillo
did not establish a reasonable fear of torture because, in the
asylum officer’s view, Blancas Hermosillo did not offer
“specific and persuasive evidence” that any public official
would consent or acquiesce to his harm. The asylum officer
acknowledged that Blancas Hermosillo’s credible testimony
included some evidence of police acquiescence to cartel
violence, but the asylum officer concluded that this evidence
was insufficient.
    Blancas Hermosillo requested that an IJ review the
asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination, as
authorized by 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.31(g) and 1208.31(g). In a
one-page form decision, the IJ affirmed the asylum officer’s
determination. For the asylum claim, the IJ agreed with the
asylum officer that Blancas Hermosillo had not established
a “nexus between family group membership and [the] harm
[his] family members suffered” and, therefore, did not show
a nexus between his feared harm and a protected ground. For
the CAT relief claim, the IJ affirmed the asylum officer’s
finding that Blancas Hermosillo did not demonstrate a
reasonable fear of torture, but he did not explain why. These
affirmances make Blancas Hermosillo’s reinstatement order
final, 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(g)(1), and subject to review under 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
                      HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND                         11

                                 II.
    We review the IJ’s rulings for substantial evidence. See
Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2018).2
Under the substantial evidence standard, we uphold the
agency’s determinations unless, based on the evidence, “any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
the contrary.” Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th
Cir. 2014).
    The Government does not dispute that the harm Blancas
Hermosillo fears would constitute (1) persecution if he
established nexus (i.e., that the cartels would seek to harm
him because of his family relationships); or (2) torture if he
established that the police would acquiesce to the cartel’s
efforts. See Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009)
(finding it “well established that physical violence is
persecution”); Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071, 1079
(9th Cir. 2008) (finding that “beatings and killings” are
“[a]cts constituting torture”). Therefore, the only issues
presented are whether Blancas Hermosillo’s credible
testimony is enough at the screening stage to compel the
conclusion that he established nexus and acquiescence
sufficient to satisfy the reasonable fear standard. We
determine that the record compels the conclusion that
Blancas Hermosillo established both. Alvarado-Herrera,
993 F.3d at 1195.
                                 ***
   As we have recognized, “the family remains the
quintessential particular social group,” and a noncitizen

2
  Because the IJ affirmed the asylum officer’s determination of a claim
without explanation, we review the asylum officer’s reasoning with
respect to torture. Bartolome, 904 F.3d at 814 n.11.
12                 HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND

“who has suffered persecution ‘on account of their familial
relationship’ has suffered persecution by reason of
membership in a particular social group.” Parada v.
Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 910 (9th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up)
(citing Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015)).
Blancas Hermosillo’s testimony compels the conclusion that
there is a reasonable possibility he would be harmed or killed
by the cartels because of his familial relationship to the
leader of Autodefensa and other Autodefensa members.
    Blancas Hermosillo credibly testified that the cartels
launch weekly attacks against Autodefensa members.
Additionally, to erode resistance, the cartels target the
relatives of Autodefensa members, particularly relatives of
the Autodefensa leader, Blancas Hermosillo’s uncle J.V.V.
At merits hearings, petitioners typically establish such
practices through expert testimony, country conditions
reports, or media reports. But noncitizens in expedited
removal proceedings “cannot realistically be expected to
produce for the asylum officer’s review the kind of detailed
country conditions evidence that would be introduced during
a merits hearing before an immigration judge.” Alvarado-
Herrera, 993 F.3d at 1196. Thus, at the screening stage, a
noncitizen’s “own statements can supply adequate support
for claims about country conditions, at least for purposes of
satisfying the ten percent threshold necessary to pass a
reasonable fear screening interview.” Id. at 1197.
    The IJ determined—and the Government argues on
appeal—that Blancas Hermosillo did not show a causal link
between his own family ties and potential persecution
because the record shows only that the cartels targeted
Blancas Hermosillo’s uncles because of their own
membership in Autodefensa, not their familial relationship
to Autodefensa members. There are two problems with that
                   HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND                   13

argument. First, it ignores the possibility that the cartels
acted with mixed motives. Blancas Hermosillo credibly
testified that he believes the cartels targeted his uncle G.H.
both because of his own membership in Autodefensa and to
deter Blancas Hermosillo’s uncle J.V.V., the leader of
Autodefensa. Blancas Hermosillo candidly acknowledged at
his screening interview that he had no direct evidence of the
cartels’ subjective motives. That is not surprising, as
“persecutors are hardly likely to provide their victims with
affidavits.” Bolanos–Hernandez v. INS, 767 F.2d 1277, 1285
(9th Cir.1984). Still, the circumstances support the inference
that the cartels killed G.H. at least in part because of his
relationship to J.V.V. Further, the IJ identified no basis for
disregarding that possible inference and instead assumed
that the cartels targeted G.H. exclusively because of his own
membership in Autodefensa.
    Second, Blancas Hermosillo does not need to show that
his uncles experienced persecution on the basis of their
family membership in order to show that he himself might
experience persecution as a relative of Autodefensa
members. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2) (setting out how a
petitioner may demonstrate eligibility for withholding of
removal through a risk of future persecution); see also
Sanchez-Chanizalez v. Holder, 520 F. App’x 528, 530 (9th
Cir. 2013) (“This court does not require the petitioner to
show that another family member was persecuted on account
of a protected ground. Rather, the petitioner need only show
that she herself was persecuted because of her status as a
family member.”). Thus, even assuming all of Blancas
Hermosillo’s uncles were harmed only because of their
Autodefensa memberships and not their familial
relationships, that does not foreclose the possibility that
14                 HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND

Blancas Hermosillo will experience persecution as a relative
of the Autodefensa leader and other members.
    The Government also contends that Blancas
Hermosillo’s claim is too speculative to justify relief. But
each case the Government cites involved this court’s review
of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision issued after a
merits hearing. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018
(9th Cir. 2003); Li v. INS, 92 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 1996);
Espinoza-Martinez v. INS, 754 F.2d 1536, 1540 (9th Cir.
1985). Blancas Hermosillo, by contrast, has received no such
hearing. Blancas Hermosillo’s evidence is exactly what one
might expect at the screening stage: a credible account that
cartels target relatives of Autodefensa members supported
by testimonial evidence and backed by the representation
that additional evidence exists to support his assertions. At
this stage of the proceedings, Blancas Hermosillo’s credible
assertions of cartel knowledge, practices, and motivations
are sufficient evidence of such facts and must be accepted as
true. See Alvarado-Herrera, 993 F.3d at 1197. Accepting
those facts as true, any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude that Blancas Hermosillo would face
a reasonable possibility of persecution because of his family
relationship to Autodefensa members. Because he has
offered enough evidence at this preliminary stage to
establish a reasonable possibility of persecution, he is
entitled to a merits hearing.
                            ***
    Blancas Hermosillo’s testimony similarly establishes, at
the screening stage, a reasonable possibility that a public
official would acquiesce to his torture. Police unwillingness
to address cartel violence constitutes acquiescence. See Cole
v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Acquiescence
                    HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND                    15

by government officials requires only that they were aware
of the torture but remained willfully blind to it, or simply
stood by because of their inability or unwillingness to
oppose it.”) (cleaned up and internal citation omitted).
Blancas Hermosillo credibly testified to both personal and
anecdotal evidence that the Mexican police are aware of
cartel violence but decline to act because of both corruption
and the unwillingness to oppose the cartels.
    The Government argues that a single example from 2012
does not compel a finding of acquiescence. But persons
fearing torture “need not have reported . . . persecution to the
authorities if [they] can convincingly establish that doing so
would have been futile or have subjected [them] to further
abuse.” Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058
(9th Cir. 2006). Blancas Hermosillo testified that his family
did not seek further police assistance out of fear that the
police would turn them over to the cartels, and that the
cartels kidnapped a man who reported a car theft to the police
and threatened to kill him if he complained again.
    The asylum officer held that Blancas Hermosillo did not
provide “specific and persuasive evidence to establish a
reasonable possibility that a public official would consent or
acquiesce to his future harm by the cartels.” Here, as in
Alvarado-Herrera, “[i]t is unclear what additional evidence
the asylum officer expected [Blancas Hermosillo] to produce
at this stage of the proceedings.” 993 F.3d at 1196. At the
screening stage of the proceedings, Blancas Hermosillo’s
credible testimony is sufficient evidence of cartel violence
and police refusal to intervene, and we accept his testimony
as true. Id. at 1197. Accepting his testimony as true, any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that
16                    HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND

Blancas Hermosillo faces a reasonable possibility of torture
with government acquiescence.3
    In sum, we conclude that the negative reasonable fear
determinations for persecution and torture are not supported
by substantial evidence. We remand this case to the agency
with instructions to provide Blancas Hermosillo with a
hearing before an IJ on the merits of his claims for
withholding of removal and protection under CAT.
  PETITION FOR REVIEW                         GRANTED           AND
REMANDED with instructions.

3
  We do not suggest that Blancas Hermosillo is necessarily entitled to
withholding or CAT relief. At the merits hearing, he must still provide
sufficient evidence to establish each element of his claims.
                        HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND                            17

BENNETT, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part:

    I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to
grant the petition as to the immigration judge’s (IJ) finding
that Eric Blancas Hermosillo lacks a reasonable fear of
persecution for failure to establish a nexus to a protected
ground.1 The substantial evidence standard is “extremely
deferential.” Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003). Under that standard, we must ask whether the
evidence compels the conclusion that there is a reasonable
possibility that Blancas Hermosillo would be persecuted
because of his familial relationship to Autodefensa
members. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1
(1992); 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.31(c), 1208.31(c).          Here, a
reasonable factfinder could conclude that the record lacks
any nonspeculative evidence that family members of
Autodefensa members—who are not themselves
Autodefensa members—were ever targeted by the cartels.
    Blancas Hermosillo mainly relied on the following
evidence to support that he would be persecuted on account

1
  I agree with the majority’s decision to grant the petition as to the IJ’s
finding that Blancas Hermosillo lacks a reasonable fear of torture.
Blancas Hermosillo offered information about a specific instance when
his family reported the cartels’ violence to the police, and the police said
that they did not want to get involved. He also offered anecdotal
evidence of police corruption. Accepting that information as true, the
record compels the conclusion that he established a reasonable
possibility of government acquiescence. See Alvarado-Herrera v.
Garland, 993 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that the record
compelled a finding of a reasonable possibility of government
acquiescence where the petitioner provided a specific account of an
attack by gang members who were dressed in police uniforms and
displayed police badges, along with anecdotal evidence of police
corruption).
18                     HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND

of his familial relationship to Autodefensa members: his
testimony that (1) the cartels harmed or killed four of his
uncles because they were or are active Autodefensa
members2; and (2) the cartels “target and kill the family
members of the Autodefensa team to use that fear to
discourage them from doing what they are doing.”3 A
reasonable factfinder could view this evidence as
insufficient to meet the reasonable possibility standard.
    As the IJ reasonably found, the testimony about Blancas
Hermosillo’s uncles did not support the claimed nexus
because such testimony showed that his uncles were harmed
because of “their involvement in Autodefensa and their
actions in fighting against the cartels.” The majority rejects
the IJ’s finding because the evidence “support[s] the
inference” that the cartels killed one of Blancas Hermosillo’s

2
  His uncle J.V.V., who is the leader of the Autodefensa, was attacked
while “defend[ing] the people.” His uncle G.H. was “in charge of the
security of the town” and was “burned alive in his car.” Blancas
Hermosillo told the asylum officer that G.H. was burned “[b]ecause he
[was] part of the Autodefensa team,” although he also stated that G.H.
was burned to deter J.V.V. as the leader of Autodefensa and then later
stated that he did not know why G.H. was targeted. His uncle Javier
B.G. was shot because “the cartels [were] trying to enter” his hometown
and he “was trying to defend [the] town.” And his uncle Jose B.G. was
shot at because the cartels were “fighting among each other to take
control” of his hometown.
3
  The majority suggests that the record shows Blancas Hermosillo could
produce additional evidence at a merits hearing. Maj. 8. The record,
however, is not so clear. Blancas Hermosillo did state that he could
provide more evidence during his credible fear interview with the asylum
officer and initial appearance before the IJ. But when asked by the IJ at
his reasonable fear hearing whether he had presented all the information
to the asylum officer that he wanted to present, Blancas Hermosillo
responded only that he would have clarified that the cartels are located
throughout the country, not just in his hometown.
                   HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND                   19

uncles, G.H., at least in part because of his relationship to
J.V.V. Maj. 13 (emphasis added).
    The majority applies the wrong standard. That the
evidence might support an inference contrary to IJ’s is
insufficient; we must determine whether the evidence
compels the conclusion that G.H. was killed because of his
relationship to J.V.V. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481
n.1 (“To reverse the [agency’s] finding we must find that the
evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but
compels it . . . .”); see also Salguero Sosa v. Garland, 55
F.4th 1213, 1222 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that evidence that
might support an inference contrary to the agency’s was
insufficient to reverse under the substantial evidence
standard).
    While Blancas Hermosillo stated that his uncle G.H. was
killed to deter J.V.V. as the leader of Autodefensa, when
specifically asked by the asylum officer why the cartel killed
G.H., Blancas Hermosillo responded that it was only
“[b]ecause he [was] part of the Autodefensa team.” Then,
when asked for clarification whether G.H. was killed
because of his Autodefensa membership or his relationship
to J.V.V., Blancas Hermosillo equivocated: “[t]o be honest,
I don’t know what the real reason was.” Given Blancas
Hermosillo’s lack of certainty, along with the other evidence
that the cartels target Autodefensa members, a factfinder
could reasonably infer that G.H. was killed only because of
his Autodefensa membership. Thus, a factfinder would not
be compelled to conclude that the harm to Blancas
Hermosillo’s uncles supported the claimed nexus.
    A factfinder could also reasonably determine that
Blancas Hermosillo’s conclusory statement that the cartels
target family members of Autodefensa members without any
20                 HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND

specific details was speculative, and thus insufficient to
establish the required nexus. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904
F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Speculation on what could
occur is not enough to establish a reasonable fear.”). Such
evidence was also undercut by Blancas Hermosillo’s own
testimony that, other than his uncles who had been harmed
or killed because of their Autodefensa membership, no other
family members had been harmed by the cartels in Mexico.
See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“We have also held that a petitioner’s fear of future
persecution ‘is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-
situated family members’ living in the petitioner’s home
country are not harmed.” (quoting Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d
1015, 1022 (9th Cir. 2009))).
    Relying on Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, 993 F.3d 1187
(9th Cir. 2021), the majority suggests that the IJ was required
to accept Blancas Hermosillo’s statement that the cartels
target family members of Autodefensa members, regardless
of its conclusory nature and any conflicting evidence. Maj.
14. But Alvarado-Herrera does not support the majority’s
position. In Alvarado-Herrera, we held that the petitioner’s
“specific assertions of police complicity in the 18th Street
gang’s violent acts,” id. at 1196 (emphasis added), along
with general anecdotal evidence of police corruption,
compelled the conclusion that there was a reasonable
possibility he may face torture with government
acquiescence, id. at 1196–97. We never held that an IJ must
accept conclusory assertions that are undermined by other
record evidence. Such a rule improperly usurps the IJ’s role
as factfinder to weigh the evidence. See Kotasz v. INS, 31
F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Th[e] strict [substantial
evidence] standard bars the reviewing court from
independently weighing the evidence . . . .”).
                   HERMOSILLO V. GARLAND                  21

    A reasonable factfinder could conclude that Blancas
Hermosillo offered no nonspeculative evidence that family
members of Autodefensa members—who are not
themselves Autodefensa members—were ever targeted by
the cartels. Thus, the IJ reasonably determined that the
evidence failed to establish a reasonable possibility that
Blancas Hermosillo would be persecuted on account of his
familial relationship to Autodefensa members.
                      *      *       *
    The evidence does not compel a conclusion that there is
a reasonable possibility that Blancas Hermosillo would be
persecuted on account of his familial relationship to
Autodefensa members. The majority reaches the opposite
conclusion because it fails to apply the required deferential
substantial evidence standard. I therefore dissent from the
majority’s decision to grant the petition as to the IJ’s no-
reasonable-fear-of-persecution determination.