Opinion
18-73084
10-24-2022
ARTEMIO LARA VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 20, 2022 Pasadena, California
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-081-284
Before: HIGGINSON, CHRISTEN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
MEMORANDUM
Artemio Lara Velasquez, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018). Under this deferential standard, "eligibility determinations must be upheld if they are supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole." Zhou v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2006) (simplified). Accordingly, reversal is warranted only "if the evidence in the record compels a reasonable factfinder to conclude" that the BIA's decision was incorrect. Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 2008). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of asylum. To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner must show that he is "unable or unwilling to return to" his home country "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1).
Lara Velasquez first maintains that he risks persecution upon his return to Mexico because his cousin's political opinions will be imputed to him. He testified that his cousin was kidnapped in 2014 along with several other students participating in a political protest, some of whom were later found dead. Lara Velasquez also testified that another family member, a second cousin, similarly escaped from the student killings in Iguala, Mexico. But Lara Velasquez does not specify a political opinion that he believes would be imputed to him. And as the BIA concluded, Lara Velasquez provides no evidentiary basis to compel the conclusion that others in Mexico would attribute his cousin's political opinion to him. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031-33 (9th Cir. 2014).
Lara Velasquez also fears persecution based on his family membership. In support, he testified that his nephew's father was murdered in 2016. But as the BIA noted, there is no evidence that the incidents of violence involving his two extended family members were connected. Lara Velasquez even acknowledges that the two incidents were unrelated. Thus, nothing in the record "compels the conclusion" that the BIA's lack-of-nexus finding "was incorrect." Guo, 897 F.3d at 1212 (quoting Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006)).
2. Because Lara Velasquez has not met his burden of proof for asylum, substantial evidence also supports the BIA's denial of withholding of removal under its "more stringent standard." Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 483 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Sarkar v. Garland, 39 F.4th 611, 622 (9th Cir. 2022) ("[A]n applicant who is unable to show a reasonable possibility of future persecution necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard . . . for withholding of removal." (simplified)).
3. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's denial of CAT relief. "To establish entitlement to protection under CAT, a petitioner must show 'it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.'" Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 834 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)). The torture must be "inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official" in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R § 1208.18(a)(1). To support his CAT claim, Lara Velasquez relies chiefly on a country report detailing crime and corruption in Mexico. But "generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico . . . is insufficient" for CAT relief. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). Lara Velasquez points to no other evidence that compels the conclusion that he would be targeted for torture with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that reports acknowledging that torture occurred in the applicant's country of origin were not, on their own, enough to compel the conclusion that the applicant would be tortured on return).
DENIED.
The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.