Rafael Regalado-Mendoza v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 25, 2023
• Docket: 20-70921
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL REGALADO-MENDOZA, No. 20-70921

Petitioner, Agency No. A087-968-074

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

Respondent.

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

Submitted January 23, 2023** San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, RAWLINSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Rafael Regalado-Mendoza (“Regalado”), a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing

his appeal of an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 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. “We review for

substantial evidence factual findings underlying the BIA’s determination[s] that a

petitioner is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief.”

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

Regalado’s petition.

1. Regalado argues first that the BIA erred in finding that Regalado did not

establish past or future persecution “based on [his] membership in the social group

of young, Mexican men who oppose or resist gang violence,” and his membership

in the “social group consisting of family membership” given his family’s history of

suffering gang violence, and “the [anti-gang] political opinion that will be imputed

unto him by both gangs and the corrupt police in Mexico.” Substantial evidence

supports the BIA’s finding that Regalado did not meet the “nexus” requirement—

i.e., that any past or future persecution “was or would be motivated by a protected

ground.” Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2021) (reviewing

BIA determination of nexus between persecution and protected grounds for

substantial evidence). The record indicates that Regalado’s family suffered from

2 extortion and gang violence, and that Regalado fears the same upon his return to

Mexico. But, the record does not compel the conclusion that the gangs perpetuating

this extortion and violence are motivated by anything other than financial gain. This

does not satisfy the nexus requirement for Regalado’s asylum and withholding

claims. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (a noncitizen’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.”); Molina-Morales

v. I.N.S., 237 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2001).1

2. Regalado next contends that the BIA “failed to show proper consideration

of all factors, both favorable and unfavorable as contained in his appeal.”

Regalado’s brief does not identify any factors that the BIA need have addressed and

did not address. Regalado has not identified any error on this issue. See Gonzalez-

Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[The BIA] need not discuss

each piece of evidence submitted.”).

3. Finally, Regalado contends that the BIA erroneously determined that he

was ineligible for relief under the CAT. To obtain protection under the CAT,

Regalado “had the burden to prove that it is more likely than not that (1) []he, in

1 Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Regalado did not meet the required nexus element of his asylum and withholding claims, we need not and do not address Regalado’s argument regarding the cognizability of his proposed particular social groups.

3 particular, would be (2) subject to harm amounting to torture (3) by or with the

acquiescence of a public official, if removed.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136,

1147 (9th Cir. 2021). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that

Regalado “did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that it is more likely than

not he faced an individualized risk of torture” upon return to Mexico. Although

Regalado’s testimony and the country conditions evidence that Regalado submitted

indicate that Mexico struggles with gang violence and corruption, this evidence does

not compel the conclusion that Regalado faces an individualized risk of torture. See

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

(“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular

to Petitioners and is insufficient to ... establish prima facie eligibility for protection

under the CAT.”); see also Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2018)

(same). He has not established his eligibility for relief under the CAT.

PETITION DENIED.