Robles Muniz v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 12, 2023
• Docket: 22-1397
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 12 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEONARDO ROBLES MUNIZ, No. 22-1397

Petitioner, Agency No. A096-529-478

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

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 17, 2023 ** Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE, FISHER, and LEE, 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). *** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, sitting by designation. Leonardo Robles Muniz, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s

(IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny

the petition.

Robles Muniz entered the United States in December 1996. In March 2018,

he testified before the IJ that he feared removal to Mexico because unidentified

assailants extorted two of his uncles there in or around January 2018. The IJ denied

Robles Muniz’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.

The IJ concluded that Robles Muniz failed to establish that (1) a nexus exists

between the harm he fears and a particular social group and (2) he would be tortured

by anyone. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and cited the same rationales.

An applicant for asylum or withholding of removal must demonstrate a nexus

between the harm he fears and a protected ground. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846

F.3d 351, 358 (9th Cir. 2017). “[H]arassment by criminals motivated by theft . . .

bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th

Cir. 2010); see also Maceda Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir.

2021).

Here, the agency concluded that Robles Muniz failed to provide “any

evidence” that his uncles were targeted “on account of their membership in their

2 family.” Unidentified assailants extorted Robles Muniz’s uncles one time in 2018,

and Robles Muniz claims that he fears he would be harmed, too, if he lived near his

uncles. But this constitutes a fear of general criminality. The agency thus did not

err in concluding that Robles Muniz failed to establish a nexus between the harm he

fears and a protected ground. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016; Rodriguez-Zuniga v.

Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (reviewing nexus decisions for

substantial evidence).

To establish entitlement to protection under CAT, an applicant “must show

that it is ‘more likely than not’ that he or she will be tortured ” if removed to the

country of removal. Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)

(quoting Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 936 (9th Cir. 2004)). He must also show

that “he would be subject to a ‘particularized threat of torture,’ and that such torture

would be inflicted ‘by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of

a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.’” Id. (emphasis and

citations omitted).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Robles Muniz’s CAT

claim because he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be

tortured in Mexico and that the Mexican government would acquiesce in such

conduct. Robles Muniz testified about a single instance in 2018 in which his uncles

were extorted. But because evidence of generalized crime in Mexico is not particular

3 to Robles Muniz, nothing about this testimony or the country conditions reports

compels a finding that he faces a particularized risk of future torture. See

Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 707 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that

substantial evidence supported the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioner

“offered no evidence to show that he faces any particularized risk of torture (or

kidnapping or extortion) higher than that faced by all Mexican citizens.”). And

Robles Muniz is only able to speculate that the assailants may target him if he lived

near his uncles, which does not compel the conclusion that he will be tortured. See

Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting torture claim where

“claims of possible torture remain speculative”).

PETITION DENIED.