Opinion
16-72046
02-18-2022
MARTIN GONZALEZ-MARTINEZ, AKA Martin Gonzalez, AKA Martin G. Martinez, AKA Martin Martinez Gonzalez, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-408-954
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Martin Gonzalez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Gonzalez-Martinez failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be on account of an imputed political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant "must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial").
Gonzalez-Martinez does not challenge the agency's determination that he did not establish past persecution on account of his race. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Gonzalez-Martinez failed to show a pattern or practice of persecution against indigenous Zapotecs in Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (record evidence of widespread discrimination against particular groups did not compel the conclusion that there was a pattern or practice of persecution). Thus, Gonzalez-Martinez's withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's determination that Gonzalez-Martinez failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.