Mendez Amador v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT URBANO MENDEZ AMADOR; KEVIN No. 22-1970 MENDEZ RAMIREZ, Agency Nos. A215-897-655 Petitioners, A215-897-656 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Urbano Mendez Amador and his minor son (“Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Guatemala, seek review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal of an order from an Immigration Judge * 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). (“IJ”) (collectively, “the Agency”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions. Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018). We review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). We deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the Agency’s finding that Petitioners failed to establish a nexus between Mendez Amador’s past or feared future persecution and either family membership or political opinion. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (listing protected grounds for asylum), 1231(b)(3)(A) (same, for withholding of removal). Petitioners’ general “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence also supports the Agency’s finding that Mendez Amador is ineligible for CAT protection because Petitioners did not establish that “it is more likely than not that [Mendez Amador] would be tortured” by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See 8 C.F.R. 2 22-1970 §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). The Agency reasonably concluded that Mendez Amador was not previously tortured in Guatemala, and Petitioners failed to show an individualized threat of future torture specific to Mendez Amador. “[G]eneralized evidence of violence and crime . . . is insufficient” for CAT eligibility. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). Because Mendez Amador’s petition for review fails, any claim his son holds as a derivative asylum applicant also fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A); Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 521, 525 (9th Cir. 2006). The Government’s motion to correct and amend the case caption is granted in part1 and denied in part as moot. Petitioners’ amended motion to stay removal is also denied as moot.2 PETITION DENIED. …

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