Opinion
21-70810
10-26-2022
CARLOS LOPEZ MESINAS, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 21, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200-297-053
Before: KLEINFELD, CHRISTEN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
To grant a petition for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying an application for a withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), the petitioner must show that "it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal." 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Here, the immigration judge found (and the BIA agreed) that Lopez was not more likely than not to be tortured if he were removed to Mexico.
The facts of this case do not compel reversing the findings of fact or granting the petition for review because substantial evidence supports the immigration judge's factual findings. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 738 (9th Cir. 2009); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Mistreatment, even when extreme, often does not rise to the stringent standard for torture under CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1); Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2007). The gangsters' single beating of Lopez is insufficient to conclude that Lopez had faced previous torture. Lopez was unable to identify if or why the gangsters had any particular animus toward him.
In addition, Lopez's ability to relocate within Mexico supports that the immigration judge's decision was based on substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019). The gang that attacked Lopez was local and there was no evidence that the gang had influence anywhere beyond Santiago.
Lopez's assertions that he was afraid of generalized violence throughout Mexico are insufficient to compel reversal as well. Such claims are not particular to Lopez. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).Thus, there is substantial evidence to justify the immigration judge's denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture because Lopez has not shown that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Mexico.
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).