Court Opinion

ID: 9406354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 18:00:50.41732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:29.190548
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                                                                          JUN 30 2023
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIELA LIZBETH BENITEZ                        No. 22-375
LORENZO and KEYSHA MELINA                       Agency Nos.
GARDUNO BENITEZ,                                A206-270-354,
                                                A206-270-355
             Petitioners,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                             Submitted June 5, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH, HAMILTON,*** and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

      Petitioners Gabriela Lizbeth Benitez Lorenzo and her daughter Keysha

Melina Garduno Benitez are citizens of Mexico who entered the United States

in 2014. When the Department of Homeland Security charged petitioners in

      *
            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).
      ***
             The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for
the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
2016 with being in the United States without valid entry documents, petitioners

admitted they were removable but applied for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An

Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their applications and the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) dismissed their appeal of that denial. Petitioners now seek

review of the BIA’s decision as to withholding of removal and CAT protection.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the

petition.

      Lorenzo and her daughter are from Guerrero, Mexico. They fled their

home out of fear of violence perpetrated by people they believe were drug

traffickers. Lorenzo testified that neither she nor her daughter was ever a victim

of or witness to criminal activity, but several family members were. Taxi

drivers, including Lorenzo’s husband, had their routes restricted by unknown

individuals, presumed to be drug traffickers, who barred them from driving in

certain areas. Lorenzo’s mother owned a small business and was extorted for

payments from unknown individuals, also presumed to be drug traffickers.

Based on these incidents, Lorenzo fled with her infant daughter. After

petitioners arrived in the United States, Lorenzo’s uncle and her cousin’s

husband were killed by unknown individuals for unknown reasons.

      The BIA found no error in the IJ’s decision to deny relief and

incorporated portions of that decision as its own. We review the Board’s

decision as well as the portions of the IJ’s opinion that the BIA incorporated.

                                        2                                   22-375
Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014). We treat the

agency’s factual findings as conclusive “unless any reasonable adjudicator

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We

review de novo the Board’s determinations of law. Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968

F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020).

I.    Withholding of Removal

      Before this court, petitioners argue membership in the alleged particular

social group of “victims or witness[es] to criminal activity within their familial

unit that fear future harm” qualifies them for withholding of removal. The IJ

found as a matter of fact that petitioners had not established membership in such

a group. Lorenzo testified that neither she nor her daughter had ever been

harmed or threatened by drug traffickers and that neither of them witnessed the

criminal acts perpetrated against their family members. The BIA found no clear

error in this factual finding.

      Petitioners argue before this court that this particular social group is

cognizable, but they do not challenge the agency’s key factual finding: that even

if this group might be legally cognizable, petitioners have not shown that they

are members of it. Any argument about membership in this proposed group was

waived by this omission, and in any event substantial evidence in the form of

Lorenzo’s testimony that neither she nor her daughter ever witnessed or was a

                                        3                                   22-375
victim of criminal activity supports the agency’s decisive finding.1 Accordingly,

the agency properly concluded that Petitioners had failed to establish past

persecution or a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected

ground.

II.   Convention Against Torture

      The BIA adopted the IJ’s reasoning for denying relief under the

Convention Against Torture. The IJ found that petitioners had not established

that they would more likely than not face future torture in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(2) (providing standard for protection from removal under CAT).

Lorenzo testified that her fear stemmed from the four incidents described above

against family members—perpetrated by unknown persons—and general

conditions in Mexico. Petitioners argue before this court that their family’s

experiences in Mexico alongside the submitted country-conditions report

establish a particularized risk. But substantial evidence supports the IJ’s

determination that the lack of evidence as to who the perpetrators were, whether

they were associated with criminal organizations, and why they committed

crimes against petitioners’ family members meant that they failed to establish

the required likelihood of torture. Petitioners presented only generalized

evidence of the risk of violence in Mexico. That generalized risk is not

1
  Assuming that petitioners did not waive a second issue, substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s finding that the criminals they fear would not be
motivated to harm them based on an anti-criminal political opinion. Lorenzo
testified that she never expressed such an opinion, and she gave no reason that
anyone would impute that opinion to her or her daughter.

                                        4                                   22-375
sufficient to meet petitioners’ burden under CAT. See, e.g., Delgado-Ortiz v.

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).

      The petition for review is DENIED.

                                      5                                 22-375