Arturo Jimenez-Flores v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARTURO JIMENEZ-FLORES, No. 17-73228 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-297-437 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 13, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Arturo Jimenez-Flores seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Petitioner’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and * 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). Nationality Act and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017), and we deny the petition. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. (quoting Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)). “[T]o reverse such a finding, we must find that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Id. (cleaned up). And where the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the decision of the BIA. Deloso v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 858, 863 (9th Cir. 2005). 1. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Petitioner’s asylum and withholding of removal claims because Jimenez-Flores did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). We agree. Jimenez-Flores claims that he suffered past persecution on account of his membership in the particular social group “Mexican males, who support the rule of law, refuse participation with the ‘Cartel’ criminal organizations and refuse to pay the criminal organizations money.” Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that none of Jimenez-Flores allegations rise to the level of persecution. Jimenez-Flores claims that he was threatened and extorted by the Familia Michoacana cartel, and that while attempting to reenter the United States, he was hit 2 with a rifle and robbed by Mexican police officers. He also claims that he reported the incidents and fled Mexico but that his brother is now being harassed by the Zetas cartel. These accusations do not compel a finding of persecution. “[P]ersecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” Ghaly v. I.N.S., 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). And, “some circumstances that cause petitioners physical discomfort or loss of liberty do not qualify as persecution, despite the fact that such conditions have caused the petitioners some harm.” Mihalev v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 722, 729 (9th Cir. 2004). While the events Jimenez-Flores claims …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals