Court Opinion

ID: 9930791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 18:01:27.086113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:40:30.514667
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 7 2024
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REYES LARA GUZMAN,                              No. 22-2020
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A075-105-085
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted February 5, 2024**
                                Portland, Oregon

Before: GOULD, BRESS, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Reyes Lara Guzman (Lara Guzman), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an

Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his application for withholding of removal and

      *
             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).
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the BIA affirmed

the IJ decision without opinion, “we treat the IJ’s decision as that of the BIA,” Sinha

v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1019–20 (9th Cir. 2009), and review findings of fact for

substantial evidence. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021).

“Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence

compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028

(9th Cir. 2019). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

petition.

      1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Lara Guzman’s application for

withholding of removal. To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, Lara

Guzman must show “that it is more likely than not” that he will be persecuted if

returned to Mexico “because of” membership in a particular social group or other

protected ground. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357, 360 (9th Cir. 2017);

see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). To meet his burden, Lara Guzman must demonstrate

a nexus between his past or feared harm and a protected ground.             Garcia v.

Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021). There is a nexus to a protected

ground if the petitioner shows that a protected ground was “a reason” for the past or

feared harm. Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 360.

      Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that it would not be

unreasonable for Lara Guzman to relocate within Mexico to avoid future

                                         2                                   22-2020
persecution. Because Lara Guzman has not established past persecution, he bears

the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him to relocate to avoid

future persecution.   See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(3)(i).       The IJ found that Lara

Guzman’s mother successfully relocated within Mexico and has largely avoided

harassment or violence as a result. The IJ further concluded that Lara Guzman could

avoid future persecution by similarly relocating. While Lara Guzman asserts that

widespread violence in Mexico would make relocation impossible, the generic out-

of-record evidence that he proffers does not “compel[] a contrary conclusion” to that

of the agency. Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028.

      Even without the relocation finding, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s denial of withholding of removal. First, Lara Guzman’s asserted imputed

political opinion of opposing gang violence does not qualify as a cognizable political

opinion for withholding purposes. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012,

1017–18 (9th Cir. 2023) (rejecting refusal to “submit to violence by criminal

groups/gangs” as a political opinion that can qualify for asylum and withholding of

removal).

      Second, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that there is

no nexus between Lara Guzman’s cited incidents of past violence and extortion

threats against his family members and his proposed social group consisting of

“members of the Lara Guzman family.” Although the incidents involving Lara

                                         3                                   22-2020
Guzman’s family members are unfortunate, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s

determination that these incidents were based on general criminality in Mexico. And

criminal acts by gang members “motivated by theft or random violence . . . bear[]

no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.

2010).

      Third, Lara Guzman’s alternative proposed social group “returning Mexicans

after residency in the United States who will be perceived as wealthy,” is not

cognizable. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228–29 (9th Cir. 2016)

(holding that that “the proposed group of ‘imputed wealthy Americans’ is not a

discrete class of persons recognized by society as a particular social group”).

      For all these reasons, substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding

of removal.

      2. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. “To qualify

for CAT relief, a petitioner must show that []he more likely than not will be tortured

if []he is removed to h[is] native country.” Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1066

(9th Cir. 2013). Lara Guzman does not allege that he has been tortured in the past.

Nor does the record compel the conclusion that Lara Guzman “will more likely than

not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed” to

Mexico. See Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). While

Lara Guzman testified about police corruption and violence, this “generalized

                                        4                                   22-2020
evidence of violence and crime in Mexico” does not compel the conclusion that Lara

Guzman is eligible for CAT relief. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152

(9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence thus supports the agency’s conclusion that

Lara Guzman has not demonstrated a likelihood of future torture in Mexico by or

with the acquiescence of the Mexican government.

      PETITION DENIED.1

1
  Lara Guzman’s motion to stay removal, Dkt. 4, is denied. The temporary stay of
removal shall remain in place until the mandate issues.

                                      5                                  22-2020