Jose Echeverria-Valencia v. Todd Blanche

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE GUADALUPE ECHEVERRIA- No. 19-72756 VALENCIA, AKA Jose Echeverria, Agency No. A200-909-865 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 18, 2026** San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW, BEA, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Jose Guadalupe Echeverria-Valencia, a native and citizen of

Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial

of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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. We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and

questions of law de novo. Singh v. Garland, 97 F.4th 597, 602 (9th Cir. 2024).

We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that

Echeverria-Valencia is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal.1 “An

asylum applicant must demonstrate that a protected ground was ‘at least one

central reason’ for [his] persecution,” and “a withholding of removal

applicant . . . must prove only that a cognizable protected ground is ‘a reason’ for

future persecution.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021)

(citation modified). Echeverria-Valencia listed membership in a particular social

group as his protected ground, but his proposed particular social groups of

“Americanized men” and “Americanized young men returned to Mexico from the

United States” are not cognizable. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,

1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We conclude that Petitioners’ proposed social group,

‘returning Mexicans from the United States,’ . . . is too broad to qualify as a

cognizable social group.”); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228–29 (9th

Cir. 2016) (holding that “a discrete subset of Mexicans returning home from the

1 The BIA also denied Echeverria-Valencia’s asylum claim on the alternative ground that it was not timely filed. Because we affirm the BIA on the merits of the asylum claim, we need not reach the timeliness determination.

2 United States: those who have the physical appearance and mannerisms of

Americans” is not “a narrowly defined or cognizable particular social group”).

Echeverria-Valencia also failed to establish a nexus between membership in

the particular social group of “Americanized men” and any future persecution. In

testimony before the agency, Echeverria-Valencia expressed fear that “there’s

violence everywhere in Mexico,” and “most of the people there live by just

stealing people, robbing people.” Echeverria-Valencia also stated that criminals in

Mexico kidnap people randomly, “kill innocent people that didn’t have to do

nothing with gangs or anything,” and “target whoever, just innocent people or

people that just live there.” A generalized fear of being targeted by criminals does

not establish nexus to a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,

1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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.”); Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019)

(holding that danger in Mexico “is not on account of a protected ground” where the

petitioner “testified that he would be targeted because people in Mexico would

know he came from the United States and would assume his family had money for

a ransom”). Substantial evidence therefore supports the agency’s denial of

Echeverria-Valencia’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. To

3 receive CAT protection, Echeverria-Valencia must demonstrate that he is “more

likely than not to be tortured” in Mexico. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). Echeverria-

Valencia has not experienced past torture in Mexico, where he has never

lived. Though he testified that his cousin’s husband had been kidnapped, he did

not know who did it and why, nor is he acquainted with this cousin. He also

acknowledged that no other family member or friend had been harmed in

Mexico. Although “the country conditions evidence acknowledged crime and

police corruption in Mexico generally,” “the evidence fails to show that Petitioner

faces a particularized, ongoing risk of future torture.” Tzompantzi-Salazar v.

Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 706–07 (9th Cir. 2022).

PETITION DENIED.2

2 The temporary stay of removal remains in effect until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal, Dkt. No. 1, is otherwise denied.