Peralta Valdez v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 5, 2024
• Docket: 23-1714
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 5 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMBROCIO PERALTA No. 23-1714 VALDEZ; ZIDEISY GONZALEZ Agency Nos. LEYVA; SAMUEL PERALTA A208-920-619 GONZALEZ, A208-920-561 A208-920-562 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 2, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE, IKUTA, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Ambrocio Peralta Valdez, Zideisy Gonzalez Leyva, and Samuel

Peralta Gonzalez—natives and citizens of Mexico—petition for review of 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). Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of their appeal of an Immigration

Judge’s (IJ) decision denying their applications for asylum, statutory withholding

of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). “Where the

BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration judge’s reasoning,

we review both decisions.” Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir.

2012). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence.

Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). We have

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

1. Petitioners challenge the agency’s determination that they failed to

demonstrate a nexus between their past harm or feared future harm and their

membership in a particular social group. Petitioners alleged membership in four

proposed particular social groups: (1) “returnee[s] to Mexico from the United

States,” (2) “Mexicans who have affirmatively opposed and reported to authorities

Mexican cartel operations,” (3) “family” of Peralta, and (4) for one of the

Petitioners, Gonzalez, “women in Mexico.” The agency assumed the particular

social groups were cognizable but determined that Petitioners’ membership in any

proposed group was neither “a reason” nor “one central reason” for their past or

feared future harm in Mexico. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358

(9th Cir. 2017).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Petitioners

2 23-1714 experienced harm and fear future harm by individuals who were, or would be,

motivated by financial gain. Petitioners testified that they were mugged and

extorted by unidentified individuals in Mexico and that they fear harm by those

same individuals if returned. Petitioners believed they were extorted because their

jobs and home may have given the impression that they “had money.” They were

not aware of any organized criminal groups in their hometown. Petitioners have

not pointed to any record evidence that links the harm they experienced to the

cartels or to their proposed particular social groups. Petitioners’ general “desire to

be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random

violence . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d

1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).

Petitioners rely heavily on country reports and news articles evidencing

widespread violence against women in Mexico and the abuse of returning

deportees by the cartels. But this evidence does not show that the unidentified

individuals whom Petitioners fear would be motivated to harm them because they

belong to one of their proposed particular social groups.1 See Rodriguez-Zuniga v.

Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2023) (“The reasons needed to prove a

1 Petitioners’ argument that the country reports provide the evidence “found missing” in Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2019), is unavailing because Ramirez-Munoz concerned whether a particular social group was cognizable, not nexus, and the agency assumed cognizability here. See 816 F.3d at 1229.

3 23-1714 nexus refer to the persecutor’s motivations for persecuting the petitioner.”). Nor

do Petitioners show that the agency failed to consider Gonzalez’s claim that she

will face gender-based harm in the future based on evidence of country-wide

violence against women. The agency expressly considered all the evidence and

testimony and concluded that none of Petitioners’ proposed social groups bears a

nexus to the harm they fear.

The agency’s no-nexus determination is dispositive of Petitioners’ claims for

asylum and withholding of removal. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077,

1081 (9th Cir. 2016). We therefore decline to address their arguments regarding

past persecution, a pattern or practice of persecution, and internal relocation.

2. Petitioners challenge the agency’s determination that they are

ineligible for CAT relief because they presented only a speculative fear of torture

lacking the requisite degree of state action.2 “To qualify for relief under CAT, [a

petitioner] must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he [or she] would

be tortured . . . ‘by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a

public official or other person acting in an official capacity.’” Duran-Rodriguez v.

Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioners are

2 Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determination that they did not experience past torture.

4 23-1714 ineligible for CAT protection. Petitioners assert that the cartels will subject them

to torture, but they rely on “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico

[that] is not particular to [them] and is insufficient to meet [the] standard” for CAT

protection. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010); see also

B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 845 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Generalized evidence of

violence in a country is itself insufficient to establish that anyone in the

government would acquiesce to a petitioner's torture.”). Further, the police’s

inconclusive investigation of Petitioners’ extortion and the lack of resources to

patrol Petitioners’ home are insufficient to show that the Mexican government

would acquiesce in their torture. See Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 363; Garcia-

Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). Therefore, Petitioners have

not shown that they are entitled to CAT protection.

The motion for a stay of removal is denied. The temporary stay of removal

is lifted.

PETITION DENIED.

5 23-1714