Opinion
17-72673
11-16-2022
JOSE M. GUTIERREZ-RAMIREZ, AKA Ester Gutierez, AKA Jose Gutierrez- Gutierrez, AKA Jose Manuel Gutierrez- Ramirez, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 10, 2022 [**] Seattle, Washington
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200-697-156
Before: IKUTA and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, [***] District Judge.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Jose Gutierrez-Ramirez seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
The BIA determined that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rebutted the presumption of future persecution by establishing that due to "a fundamental change of circumstances," 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A), Gutierrez-Ramirez's life or freedom would not be threatened if he returned to Mexico, and that determination was supported by substantial evidence, see Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 956 (9th Cir. 2021). The BIA conducted an "individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect" Gutierrez-Ramirez's specific situation, Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2003), and reasonably concluded that Gutierrez-Ramirez was no longer at risk of being targeted because his father's labor union enemies had achieved their stated goal of driving his father from the union (and Mexico) over 20 years ago. DHS can rely on the passage of time (and its attendant effects on the petitioner) to rebut the presumption of future persecution. See Iraheta-Martinez, 12 F.4th at 955-56. Thus, the BIA did not err in denying withholding of removal.
Because Gutierrez-Ramirez was placed in withholding-only proceedings after the reinstatement of his 2010 removal order, he was ineligible for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(e); see also Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066, 1080-81 (9th Cir. 2016).
The BIA's determination that Gutierrez-Ramirez did not show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to Mexico was also supported by substantial evidence. Gutierrez-Ramirez spent nearly a year in Mexico between 2007 and 2008 and admits he was not harmed during that time. Gutierrez-Ramirez's speculation that he might be tortured is insufficient to carry his burden to show eligibility for CAT relief. See Villalobos Sura v. Garland, 8 F.4th 1161, 1170 (9th Cir. 2021). Moreover, Gutierrez-Ramirez's generalized assertions of violence and torture in Mexico do not establish eligibility for CAT relief. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010); Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
Finally, the BIA correctly determined that Gutierrez-Ramirez waived his humanitarian asylum claim by not first raising it to the IJ. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
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).
[***] The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.