Opinion
17-72846
10-21-2022
JAVIER ANGEL-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 19, 2022 Seattle, Washington
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A089-855-238
Before: TALLMAN, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Javier Angel-Sanchez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). "We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final orders of removal," Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017), and deny the petition. "We review factual findings . . . for substantial evidence." Id. (citation omitted). This means that "to reverse such a finding, we must find that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it." Id. (cleaned up). Where the BIA adopts the IJ's decision, we review the IJ's decision as if it were the decision of the BIA. Deloso v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 858, 863 (9th Cir. 2005).
1. Angel-Sanchez argues that the IJ erred in dismissing his claims for asylum and withholding of removal because the IJ disregarded Angel-Sanchez's fear of persecution for being a member of a family that has experienced violence. To qualify for asylum, Angel-Sanchez must be unable to return to Mexico "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). The "on account of" language means that Angel-Sanchez must fear persecution "because of" his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (emphasis in original). "[S]ince the statute makes motive critical," Angel-Sanchez "must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial." Id. (emphasis in original).
Angel-Sanchez contends that he is a member of a particular social group: his family. But as the IJ and BIA noted, there is no evidence that Angel-Sanchez's family experienced violence because of their family membership. Angel-Sanchez either provided no evidence of the motive behind the violence against his grandfather, cousins, and uncle or gave reasons unrelated to their family membership. And the record shows that any violence Angel-Sanchez experienced was for personal reasons. Because Angel-Sanchez provided no evidence that family membership motivated the violence, the IJ's determination that Angel-Sanchez did not fear persecution on account of his family membership is supported by substantial evidence. See Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch, 849 F.3d 800, 802-03 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). And Angel-Sanchez's failure to show eligibility for asylum necessarily means he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2. Angel-Sanchez next argues that the IJ erred in denying his CAT claim because just as the Mexican government did not protect his family in the past, it will not protect Angel-Sanchez if he returns. To qualify for deferral of removal under CAT, Angel-Sanchez must show "(1) that he would 'more likely than not' be tortured if removed to Mexico, and (2) that the torture would be inflicted with government acquiescence." Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2); 208.18(a)(1)).
Angel-Sanchez's CAT claim fails because, as the IJ noted, Angel-Sanchez was not tortured in the past, he has not shown that he will likely be tortured if he returns to Mexico, and he has not shown that the Mexican government would acquiesce to any future harm he might suffer in Mexico. Neither the record nor Angel-Sanchez's brief supports his assertion that the Mexican government will not protect him if he returns. Accordingly, Angel-Sanchez has not shown that it is more likely than not that the government will acquiesce to his torture if he is removed to Mexico. See Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 706 (9th Cir. 2022) ("[T]o qualify for CAT relief, Petitioner had to demonstrate that he, in particular, would more likely than not face torture with government consent or acquiescence upon his return to Mexico." (emphasis in original)).
PETITION DENIED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).