From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Romero v. Garland

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 25, 2022
No. 19-72065 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2022)

Opinion

19-72065

10-25-2022

ROSA MARIA ALVAREZ ROMERO; et al., Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted October 21, 2022 [**] San Francisco, California

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A094-950-048 A208-306-853 A208-306-854

Before: HAWKINS, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Rosa Maria Alvarez Romero and her two minor children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") dismissal of their appeal of the immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Alvarez Romero did not suffer past persecution. While Alvarez Romero was harassed in her native town by members of Los Autodefensas, a self-defense organization that "cleansed" her town of the Knights Templar drug cartel, the record does not compel a conclusion that these incidents amount to persecution. Alvarez Romero was never threatened with physical harm, and several of the incidents she relies on, such as the confiscation of her cellphone to determine if she was in contact with her cousin, a member of the Knights Templar, are not so "extreme" as to constitute persecution. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021). Nor does the economic harm she suffered-namely, payments of 200 pesos (at the present exchange rate of 0.050 Mexican peso to the U.S. dollar: $9.96) to Los Autodefensas-compel a finding of persecution. See id. at 1062 (holding that only "substantial economic deprivation that constitutes a threat to life or freedom can constitute persecution" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Even when considered cumulatively, these incidents do not compel a finding of past persecution. See, e.g., Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1098, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that petitioner had not suffered persecution where, despite being harassed by police "tens of times" and forced to close one of his businesses, he was neither physically attacked nor threatened with harm and was able to maintain his livelihood).

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Alvarez Romero had also failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ found that she could internally relocate within Mexico to avoid future harm and that she failed to establish that Mexican officials were unwilling or unable to protect her from Los Autodefensas. As the BIA determined, she did not challenge the IJ's findings before the BIA, and she does not challenge the BIA's determination on appeal before our court. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating the general rule that a petitioner must raise an issue in the appropriate administrative forum to preserve it for appeal); see also Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that matters not specifically and distinctly argued in the petitioner's brief are waived). Therefore, the BIA did not err in denying asylum based on Alvarez Romero's failure to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.

3. The BIA did not err in concluding that Alvarez Romero failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal where she did not satisfy the less stringent standard for asylum. See Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 719 (9th Cir. 2021).

4. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Alvarez Romero is not entitled to CAT relief because she has not shown that she is more likely than not to suffer torture in Mexico. Alvarez Romero was not subjected to torture in the past, and she points to no record evidence supporting her claim that Los Autodefensas would torture her upon her return to Mexico. The generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico does not satisfy her burden. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that "generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to [p]etitioners and is insufficient to meet [the CAT relief] standard").

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).


Summaries of

Romero v. Garland

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 25, 2022
No. 19-72065 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2022)
Case details for

Romero v. Garland

Case Details

Full title:ROSA MARIA ALVAREZ ROMERO; et al., Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 25, 2022

Citations

No. 19-72065 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2022)