Amezcua-Vazquez v. Garland

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO RAFAEL AMEZCUA- No. 23-1385 VAZQUEZ, Agency No. A087-967-851 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted September 10, 2024** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: RAWLINSON and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, District Judge.***

Francisco Rafael Amezcua-Vazquez (Amezcua-Vazquez), a native 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). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) denying his application for withholding of removal. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

“We examine the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings

for substantial evidence. . . .” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir.

2021) (citation, footnote reference, and internal quotation marks omitted). “We

may only reverse the agency’s determination where the evidence compels a

contrary conclusion from that adopted by the BIA. . . .” Id. (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted). “Because a persecutor’s actual motive is a matter of

fact, we review that finding for substantial evidence.” Rodriguez-Zuniga v.

Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal

because Amezcua-Vazquez did not demonstrate a nexus between the harm he

experienced in Mexico and his membership in a proposed particular social group

comprised “of the Amezcua family.” During his removal proceedings, Amezcua-

Vazquez testified that he was abducted and beaten by cartel members on two or

three occasions, and that his father was kidnapped and murdered by cartel

members. Amezcua-Vazquez also related that his uncle was kidnapped by cartel

members and then released after payment of a ransom. However, Amezcua-

Vazquez did not provide evidence or testimony that cartel members “specifically

2 23-1385 sought out” Amezcua-Vazquez, his father, or his uncle on account of their familial

association. Garcia, 988 F.3d at 1145 (citation omitted); see also Rodriguez-

Zuniga, 69 F.4th at 1019 (explaining that the murder of a family member does not

necessarily “compel any conclusion about” the persecutor’s motives) (citation

omitted). Thus, the BIA properly denied Amezcua-Vazquez’s withholding of

removal claim. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016)

(explaining that “[t]he lack of a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of . . .

withholding of removal claims”) (citation omitted).1

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

1 Amezcua-Vazquez also maintained before the agency that he was a member of particular social groups comprised of “Mexican taxi drivers who have been subject[ed] to violence by cartel members and former Mexican taxi drivers.” Amezcua-Vazquez does not challenge in his opening brief the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal due to Amezcua-Vazquez’s failure to establish a nexus between his employment as a taxi driver and the harm that he and his family experienced. As a result, Amezcua-Vazquez has waived any arguments relating to his proposed particular social groups comprised of taxicab drivers. See Gutierrez- Alm v. Garland, 62 F.4th 1186, 1200 (9th Cir. 2023).

3 23-1385