Opinion
21-70680
10-13-2022
ISRAEL MENDOZA-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 3, 2022 Portland, Oregon
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. A208-933-148
Before: OWENS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Israel Mendoza-Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
We review the agency's factual findings for substantial evidence. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020). Under that standard, "[t]he 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) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
1. Mendoza-Pineda did not challenge the agency's denial of his application for asylum in his briefing and thereby forfeited that issue. See Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1338 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013).
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Mendoza-Pineda is ineligible for withholding of removal because there is no nexus between the persecution he fears and his proposed particular social group. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). Mendoza-Pineda argues that he will be harmed because of his membership in his family. As evidence, he points to the fact that his uncle and brother were kidnapped and had their land stolen by "the mafia" in El Tequit "a long time ago." Neither the uncle nor the brother was harmed after the kidnapping, and the uncle continues to live unharmed in El Tequit. Mendoza-Pineda also testified that his cousin was killed a month before the hearing, but he was not aware of why the killing took place.
In light of that evidence, the agency reasonably concluded that Mendoza-Pineda failed to carry his burden to show that his membership in his family was or would be "a reason" for any persecution. Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 359-60. And, to the extent Mendoza-Pineda asserts a "desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members," that desire "bears no nexus to a protected ground." Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
3. Mendoza-Pineda's generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico does not compel the conclusion that he is more likely than not to be tortured there. See Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2018). Therefore, substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Mendoza-Pineda is ineligible for CAT relief. Id.
PETITION DENIED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.