LAW.coLAW.co

TORRES v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-25No. No. 16-71850

Summary

Holding. The petition for review was denied in part and dismissed in part. The court upheld the agency's denial of withholding of removal because Torres did not establish nexus to a protected ground, and upheld the denial of Convention Against Torture relief because Torres failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not he would be tortured by the Mexican government or with its consent.

Francisco David Torres, a Mexican national, sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision upholding an immigration judge's denial of his request for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Torres argued he faced persecution based on a protected ground and torture risks if returned to Mexico. The court found the agency's factual determinations were supported by the record and that Torres failed to establish the required connection between any harm he faced and a legally protected category.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Whether Torres established nexus between feared harm and a protected ground for withholding of removal
  • Whether a particular social group of 'family members of taxi drivers targeted by cartels' was properly preserved for review
  • Whether Torres demonstrated likelihood of torture by or with acquiescence of the Mexican government

Procedural posture

Torres petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the immigration judge's denial of withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco David Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agencys determination that Torres failed to establish any nexus to a protected ground is supported by the record. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicants “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). We therefore do not remand for the agency to apply Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that the protected ground need only be “a reason” for withholding of removal claims, whereas it must be “one central reason” for asylum claims). We lack jurisdiction to consider the new particular social group proposed in Torress opening brief, “family members of taxi drivers targeted by cartels,” because he did not raise this group before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

Thus, Torress withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys denial of CAT relief because Torres failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.