Court Opinion

ID: 9899837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 19:01:51.787251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:51.539403
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO CESAR BARBOSA-GOMEZ,                      No. 22-1349
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A213-082-554
  v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted November 15, 2023**
                              San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, Senior
District Judge.***

       Julio Cesar Barbosa-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

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

       *
             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 Solomon Oliver, Jr., United States Senior District Judge for
the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
the immigration judge’s 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 Board’s factual findings for substantial

evidence and its legal conclusions de novo, see Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th

626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny the petition for review.

      Mr. Barbosa makes four arguments. First, he challenges the agency’s

determination that his untimely application rendered him statutorily ineligible for

asylum; he argues that the Board failed to consider how changed country

conditions affected his individual case. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) (excusing

compliance with the one-year filing requirement where the petitioner demonstrates

“changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for

asylum”). We review this mixed question of law and fact de novo. See Kaur v.

Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 2021); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d

646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007).

      Here, the record does not compel the conclusion that Mr. Barbosa

established changed circumstances to excuse the untimely asylum application. See

Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164–65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (court retained

jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions related to the one-year filing

deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4) (changed circumstances defined). When asked

why he filed his asylum application late, Mr. Barbosa indicated a lack of interest

                                         2                                    22-1349
and knowledge in the process. And when asked about the conditions in his home

country, he failed to show evidence of change beyond a continuation of criminal

activity. Thus, the Board did not err in denying Mr. Barbosa’s asylum claim.

      Second, Mr. Barbosa challenges the Board’s denial of his withholding of

removal claim. The Board found that Mr. Barbosa failed to establish he was or

would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640

F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is

established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on

account of his membership in such group”). Substantial evidence supports the

Board’s determination that there is a lack of nexus between Mr. Barbosa’s

particular purported social groups and his expected persecution.1 See Zetino v.

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from

harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members

bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, the Board did not err in denying Mr.

Barbosa’s withholding of removal claim.

      Third, Mr. Barbosa challenges the Board’s denial of his claim for CAT

relief. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of CAT protection because

1
  The Court does not review Mr. Barbosa’s contentions regarding the cognizability
of his proposed social group because the Board did not deny relief on this ground.
See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review
limited to the grounds relied on by the Board).

                                        3                                   22-1349
Mr. Barbosa failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v.

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). He offers no evidence of past torture

in Mexico. And “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not

particular to [Mr. Barbosa] and is insufficient to meet [the CAT relief] standard.”

See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). Nor does Mr.

Barbosa introduce evidence that the government, or any entity with the

acquiescence of the government, would torture him upon return to Mexico. See

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, the Board did

not err in denying Mr. Barbosa’s CAT claim.

      Lastly, Mr. Barbosa contends that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction

over his proceedings due to insufficiencies in his notice to appear. This argument

is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193

(9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice to appear does not

deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a)

is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).

      For these reasons, the Court DENIES the petition.

                                        4                                   22-1349