Opinion
20-72833
10-25-2022
JORGE PENALOZA ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 21, 2022 [**] Pasadena, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A205-312-311
Before: KLEINFELD, CHRISTEN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Jorge Penaloza Alvarado, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the denial of relief under the deferential substantial evidence standard, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and deny the petition.
Penaloza Alvarado raised other claims before the BIA, including applications for withholding of removal and cancelation of removal. But Penaloza Alvarado waived those issues by not raising them in his opening brief. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. "To qualify for CAT relief, an applicant must establish that he or she is more likely than not to suffer intentionally-inflicted cruel and inhuman treatment if removed." Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (simplified). "Torture" is "an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that do not amount to torture." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). "In addition, the torture must 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." Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (simplified). The BIA found "no clear error" in the IJ's conclusion that Penaloza Alvarado "did not provide sufficient evidence that he will be tortured" at the instigation of, with the consent of, or the acquiescence of the Mexican government. The BIA also concluded that "neither country conditions nor any other evidence" established that the Mexican government would acquiesce or consent to Penaloza Alvarado's torture.
In support of his claim that he would be tortured if returned to Mexico, Penaloza Alvarado testified that (1) his brother was threatened or beaten by gang members, and (2) his nephew was shot and killed by an unknown gang. But no evidence shows that his brother or his nephew were specifically targeted for violence or that Penaloza Alvarado himself would be targeted for violence. In addition, Penaloza Alvarado points to no direct evidence that Mexican government officials were involved in the incidents involving his family members or that those officials would inflict, instigate, consent to, or acquiesce in his torture.
He also cited to a report describing the dangerous conditions prevalent in parts of Mexico. Country conditions evidence, however, without more, generally is not sufficient to support a CAT claim. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that "generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico [that] is not particular to [p]etitioners . . . is insufficient to meet [the CAT] standard").
PETITION DENIED.
[*] 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).