Court Opinion

ID: 9693814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:01:23.452297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:18.541129
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODRIGO LUNA MARTINEZ,                          No. 22-996
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A201-241-356
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted August 23, 2023**
                               Portland, Oregon

Before: BENNETT, VANDYKE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Rodrigo Luna Martinez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of

his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

      *
             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).
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions.

Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). We review

questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. We deny

the petition for review.

      1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA and IJ’s holding that Luna

Martinez is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal because he does not

have a well-founded fear of persecution. Although the IJ found, and the BIA

agreed, that Luna Martinez had “a subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable

fear” of persecution in Puebla, Mexico, his family’s hometown, they also found

that Luna Martinez could avoid persecution by safely relocating to another part of

the country and that it would be reasonable to expect him to do so. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii) (asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2) (withholding of removal);

Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659–60 (9th Cir. 2019).

      The country conditions reports in the record support this finding. And

though Luna Martinez’s communication, anxiety, and attention disorders may

make it difficult for him to navigate daily life without the help of his family, his

many years as an effective Herbalife salesman, his ability to maintain a job in

construction, and the fact that Spanish is his first language, all support the BIA and

IJ’s conclusion that he could reasonably be expected to independently establish

                                         2                                     22-996
himself outside of Puebla. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(iii) (where persecutor is a

private actor, presumption is that internal relocation is reasonable unless applicant

establishes otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence).

      2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA and IJ’s holding that Luna

Martinez is not eligible for CAT relief because he failed to establish that it is more

likely than not that he will be tortured after removal to Mexico. The country

conditions reports submitted by Luna Martinez indicate that there are parts of

Mexico that are relatively safe. As discussed above, substantial evidence supports

the BIA and IJ’s conclusion that Luna Martinez could reasonably be expected to

relocate to one such place. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii) (evidence of ability to

relocate is relevant to assessing whether it is more likely than not that petitioner

will be tortured after removal).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                         3                                     22-996