Jose Llamas Parada v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 13, 2023
• Docket: 19-71653
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 13 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MANUEL LLAMAS PARADA; No. 19-71653 JESUS AYALA VALADEZ, Agency Nos. A206-680-528 Petitioners, A206-680-527

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

Respondent.

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

Submitted January 11, 2023** Pasadena, California

Before: WATFORD, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Jose Manuel Llamas Parada (“Petitioner Llamas Parada”) and Jesus Ayala

Valadez (“Petitioner Ayala Valadez”) are natives and citizens of Mexico. They

petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

* 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). upholding the denial by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of their applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for

substantial evidence, Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014), we deny

the petition.

1. Petitioners contend that they have a well-founded fear of future

persecution in Mexico on account of their membership in their family.1 The IJ and

BIA rejected this claim, reasoning that even if the Llamas/Ayala family were a

cognizable social group, Petitioners did not establish a sufficient nexus between

the harm alleged and their membership in that social group. Substantial evidence

supports that conclusion.2

Petitioners base their fear of persecution claim on threats from cartel

members regarding Petitioner Llamas Parada’s son. After cartel members

1 Petitioners also argued before the IJ and BIA that they were unable to return to Mexico because of past persecution, but they have abandoned that argument on appeal. We therefore do not address it. 2 Because we hold that this aspect of the BIA’s reasoning is supported by substantial evidence, we need not address the BIA’s conclusion, in the alternative, that Petitioner’s family is not a cognizable “particular social group” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). We also need not address the alternative theory advanced by Petitioners before the IJ and BIA―that they feared future persecution based on a political opinion―because Petitioners have not “specifically and distinctly” advanced that argument in their petition to our court. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2003)).

2 threatened his son at his home in Jalisco, Petitioner Llamas Parada sent him to stay

in Tijuana with his eldest daughter, who soon received a call from cartel members

threatening to harm Petitioner Llamas Parada if he did not send his son back to

Jalisco. Petitioner Llamas Parada also received a threatening text message. He

then traveled with the rest of his immediate family, including Petitioner Ayala

Valadez (his other daughter’s partner), to Tijuana and then the United States.

While Petitioners were in Tijuana, Petitioner Llamas Parada’s daughter learned

that cartel members had kicked in the doors of the family’s house in Jalisco. Since

Petitioners’ arrival in the United States in 2014, they have not received any threats

stating that they would be harmed if they returned to Mexico. Other extended

family members still live safely in Mexico. The record therefore does not compel

the conclusion that Petitioners have an objectively well-founded fear of future

persecution as required for their asylum or withholding of removal claims. See

Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Under [the

substantial evidence] standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless

the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.”).

Moreover, the record does not compel the conclusion that Petitioners

demonstrated the requisite nexus between any feared harm and their membership

in their family. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017).

The cartel’s threats toward Petitioner Llamas Parada appear to have been

3 motivated by his removal of his son from Jalisco, not by Petitioners’ familial

status. Even if there were evidence that the cartel intended to target individuals

who left and then returned to Mexico, such persecution would be based on those

individuals’ actions, not their family membership. See Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I. &

N. Dec. 40, 43–44 (BIA 2017) (“If the persecutor would have treated the applicant

the same if the protected characteristic of the family did not exist, then the

applicant has not established a claim on this ground.”).

2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that

Petitioners are not eligible for CAT relief. Although Petitioners argue that the BIA

failed to consider evidence describing corruption in law enforcement and

widespread brutality by cartels, the IJ, whose decision the BIA adopted, considered

this evidence. The agency nonetheless determined that Petitioners had not

demonstrated that they would more likely than not be tortured with government

acquiescence upon return to Mexico, or that they could not safely relocate within

Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)

(holding that “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico [that was] not

particular to Petitioners [was] insufficient to meet [the CAT] standard”). That

Petitioners have not faced any threats since 2014 also supports the agency’s

determination.

PETITION DENIED.