HERNANDEZ URCINO v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-29No. No. 20-70616

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied because substantial evidence supported the agency's factual findings that Hernandez-Urcino failed to establish persecution on account of a protected ground and failed to meet the threshold for Convention Against Torture relief.

Santiago Hernandez-Urcino, a Mexican national, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal challenging an immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. The court examined whether substantial evidence supported the agency's factual findings on these claims.

The court found that the agency properly determined Hernandez-Urcino did not establish persecution based on a protected ground required for asylum and withholding of removal. The court also found sufficient evidence supporting the denial of Convention Against Torture relief, as Hernandez-Urcino failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Mexican government or with its consent upon return.

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

Key issues

Whether persecution was connected to a protected ground under asylum law
Whether applicant established eligibility for withholding of removal
Whether applicant demonstrated likely torture by or with government acquiescence under CAT

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming the immigration judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Santiago Hernandez-Urcino, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Hernandez-Urcino failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an 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”). Thus, Hernandez-Urcinos asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys denial of CAT relief because Hernandez-Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not he would 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.