Jesus Lopez Mendoza v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 10, 2023
• Docket: 19-72417
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS LOPEZ MENDOZA, No. 19-72417

Petitioner, Agency No. A087-743-536

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 8, 2023** Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Jesus Lopez Mendoza, a citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny in part 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). dismiss in part the petition.

We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent it adopted the

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th

Cir. 2021). In doing so, we review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and factual

findings for substantial evidence. Id.

1. Asylum and Withholding of Removal. The agency’s finding that Lopez

Mendoza failed to establish past persecution is supported by substantial evidence

where he himself was never threatened or harmed and he relies on alleged events

that occurred to family members after he left Mexico. See Tamang v. Holder, 598

F.3d 1083, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the petitioner, “who was not in

the country at the time he claims to have suffered past persecution,” could not show

past persecution based on harm to his family because “we have not found that harm

to others my substitute for harm to an applicant”). Lopez Mendoza also did not

challenge the IJ’s internal-relocation finding before the BIA, depriving us of

jurisdiction to review this dispositive issue.1 See Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 960

(9th Cir. 2020); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) (requirements for asylum); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(b) (requirements for withholding of removal); Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr,

918 F.3d 1025, 1028–29 (9th Cir. 2019) (discussing asylum and withholding of

1 Even if this issue were exhausted, Lopez Mendoza failed to address it “specifically and distinctly” in his opening brief and therefore forfeited the issue. See Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020).

2 removal elements). For this reason alone, Lopez Mendoza’s asylum and withholding

of removal claims fail.

2. CAT. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that

Lopez Mendoza is ineligible for CAT protection because he failed to show that he

in particular is likely to be tortured if removed to Mexico. See Lopez v. Sessions, 901

F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2018). The relevant evidence of record are country-

conditions reports that do not establish that Lopez Mendoza or individuals like him

face a particularized risk.

PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.