Opinion
20-72187
10-24-2022
LUIS ANTONIO ANGULO-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 20, 2022 [**]Pasadena, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A209-873-904
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Luis Angulo-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny the petition for review.
"Where, as here, the BIA cites Burbano and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we review both the IJ's and the BIA's decisions." Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). We review "factual findings made as to . . . CAT claim[s] for substantial evidence." Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2018). "The agency's findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S.Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) (cleaned up).
Angulo-Garcia did not claim past torture. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Past torture is the first factor we consider in evaluating the likelihood of future torture ...."). Thus, the issue is whether the record compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not Angulo-Garcia would face future torture if removed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c).
Although Angulo-Garcia speculated that his uncle was targeted for kidnapping and shot because of the family's notoriety, he admitted that he did not know who tried to kidnap his uncle or why he was shot. He also provided no evidence that the attempted kidnapping was by official instigation or with government acquiescence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a). And, although Angulo-Garcia presented documentary evidence describing kidnapping, corruption, and violence in Mexico, he "has offered no evidence showing he faces any particularized risk of torture . . . higher than that faced by all Mexican citizens." Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2022). The record therefore does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to Mexico.
Angulo-Garcia does not seek review of the agency's denial of cancellation of removal. The BIA appropriately declined to address Angulo-Garcia's withholding claim because he did not assert it before the IJ. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019).
[*] 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).