Veliz-Sarabia v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 21, 2025
• Docket: 23-630
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL VELIZ-SARABIA, No. 23-630 Agency No. Petitioner A215-638-479 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of an Immigration Judge

Submitted March 17, 2025**

Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Gabriel Veliz-Sarabia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order affirming an asylum officer’s

negative reasonable fear determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s affirmance of the negative

* 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). reasonable fear determination. Orozco-Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th

Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Veliz-Sarabia

failed to show a reasonable possibility that the harm he suffered or fears was or

would be on account of a protected ground. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d

803, 814 (9th Cir. 2018) (no basis for withholding of removal where petitioner did

not show a nexus to a protected ground).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Veliz-Sarabia

failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or

acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia v.

Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (petitioner failed to demonstrate

government acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of future

torture despite “general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and

prevent crime”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 23-630