ZEPEDA LOPEZ v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-05No. No. 18-72709

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition was denied. The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of both the withholding of removal claim under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture claim, finding substantial evidence supported the BIA's determinations that the petitioner failed to establish past persecution, lacked the required nexus between alleged harm and a protected ground, and did not demonstrate a particularized probability of torture.

Alfonso Ignacio Zepeda Lopez petitioned for judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' rejection of his claims for withholding of removal under immigration law and the Convention Against Torture. The court examined whether substantial evidence supported the BIA's findings that Zepeda Lopez failed to demonstrate past persecution and failed to establish a required connection between any harm and a protected ground such as family relationship. The court found the record supported the BIA's conclusions on both counts.

Regarding the withholding of removal claim under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the court determined that Zepeda Lopez could not recall experiencing past harm in Mexico, and his mother's account of a single childhood incident was insufficient to establish persecution or psychological trauma. Additionally, although Zepeda Lopez's mother had been kidnapped, he did not know who kidnapped her or why, and he could not demonstrate that cartels would target him because of family ties. The court emphasized that fear of generalized cartel violence unconnected to a protected ground does not support withholding of removal.

As to the Convention Against Torture claim, the court found the record did not compel a conclusion that Zepeda Lopez faced a probable risk of torture by the Mexican government. His testimony revealed he had no recollection of past harm, no knowledge of reasons for his mother's kidnapping, and no particularized threat—only reliance on generalized country reports about violence in Mexico, which was insufficient to meet the legal standard.

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

Key issues

Whether substantial evidence supported denial of withholding of removal based on failure to establish past persecution
Whether petitioner established required nexus between alleged harm and a protected ground
Whether generalized cartel violence without personal targeting satisfies withholding of removal standards
Whether petitioner demonstrated particularized probability of torture under Convention Against Torture

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Alfonso Ignacio Zepeda Lopez (“Petitioner”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his withholding of removal claims under both the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a),

and we deny the petition.

First, substantial evidence supports the BIAs denial of Petitioners withholding of removal claim. See Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018) (“We review denials of ․ withholding of removal ․ for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Specifically, the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIAs determination that Petitioner did not show he experienced any harm rising to the level of past persecution. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting the substantial evidence “standard of review is extremely deferential: administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Petitioner could not recall experiencing any past harm in Mexico. And his mothers testimony of a single incident where Petitioner as a young child threatened to return her to her captors, does not, without more, establish that he was brainwashed or otherwise experienced any psychological trauma rising to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). As Petitioner has not established that any past harm rises to the level of persecution, he is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)-(iii).

Nor does the record compel a conclusion contrary to the BIAs determination that Petitioners ties to his mother was not a reason for the cartels to target him. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Petitioner admitted that he did not know who kidnapped his mother or why she was kidnapped, nor did he know of any other family members having problems in Mexico. Petitioner also stated that he did not fear any particular person in Mexico, but rather, feared cartels in general. But “[a]n aliens 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). The evidence does not compel a determination that Petitioner established the requisite nexus between the harm he alleges and the protected ground he relies on, which is fatal to his withholding of removal claim.

Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The lack of a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of [the petitioners] asylum and withholding of removal claims.”); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

Second, substantial evidence supports the BIAs denial of Petitioners CAT claim. See Guo, 897 F.3d at 1212. Specifically, the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIAs determination that Petitioner did not establish a probability of harm rising to the level of torture at the acquiescence of the government. See Jiang, 754 F.3d at 738. Petitioners testimony that he did not recall any past harm, that he did not know the reason for his mothers kidnapping, that he did not know why cartels would target him, and his primary reliance on generalized information in country reports supports the BIAs determination that Petitioner did not establish a particularized probability of torture upon removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (determining that the State Department reports “do not indicate that [the petitioner] would face any particular threat of torture beyond that of which all citizens of [that country] are at risk”); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico not particular to petitioners was insufficient to establish CAT eligibility).

PETITION DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

. We do not address the agencys denial of cancellation of removal or asylum because Petitioner did not raise those issues in his opening brief before this court. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). For similar reasons, we do not address the IJs competency finding or determination that Petitioner was deportable as charged.

. See also Nasrallah v. Barr, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1694, 207 L.Ed.2d 111 (2020) (determining that “§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a noncitizens factual challenges to a CAT order”).

. The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here.

. Given the lack of requisite nexus, and the BIAs focus on lack of past persecution and lack of nexus, we do not address Petitioners argument that he established an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019) (“We cannot affirm the BIA on a ground upon which it did not rely.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).