USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10579
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
ISIDRO GINEZ TECPIL,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A206-805-244
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 2 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10579
Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Isidro Ginez Tecpil petitions for review of the immigration
judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision concurring with the asylum officer’s nega-
tive reasonable fear determination, which was issued within the
context of a reinstated order of removal and viewed as a final order
of removal from the United States. On appeal, Tecpil argues that
the IJ erred by affirming the asylum officer’s finding that he had not
established a reasonable fear of either future persecution or torture
if he was removed to Mexico, as required for withholding of re-
moval or relief under the United Nations Convention Against Tor-
ture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Pun-
ishment (“CAT”), respectively. After thorough review, we deny
the petition for review. 1
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), a
noncitizen shall not be removed to a country if his life or freedom
would be threatened in such country on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). For withholding-of-removal claims,
1 We have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s review of the asylum officer’s nega-
tive reasonable fear determination because it was issued within the context of
a reinstated order of removal, which is viewed as a final order of removal.
8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); see Avila v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
560 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir.
2009) (“An order of reinstatement is a final order of removal under §
1252(a)(1).”).
USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 3 of 7
22-10579 Opinion of the Court 3
“[t]he alien bears the burden of demonstrating that it is more likely
than not [he] will be persecuted or tortured upon being returned
to h[is] country.” Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1226, 1232
(11th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted). The burden of proof is upon
the noncitizen to show his eligibility for withholding of removal
under the INA.
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b).
An alien may satisfy his burden of proof for withholding of
removal by establishing past persecution on a protected ground.
Rodriguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
735 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir. 2013).
We’ve indicated that “persecution is an extreme concept, requiring
more than a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimi-
dation, and that [m]ere harassment does not amount to persecu-
tion.” Sepulveda,
401 F.3d at 1231 (quotations omitted); see also
Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
514 F.3d 1168, 1174 (11th Cir. 2008)
(holding that a minor beating does not constitute persecution);
Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
451 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2006) (find-
ing that state officials watching and occasionally searching an indi-
vidual’s home constitute “mere harassment”). The noncitizen
need not always show that he would be singled out individually for
persecution; rather, he may sustain the burden of proof by showing
a pattern or practice of persecution of a group similarly situated to
him in which he is included or with which he may be identified.
8
C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2)(i)-(ii).
“To establish eligibility for CAT relief, an applicant must
show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by, or
with the acquiescence of, government officials if returned to the
USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 4 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10579
designated country of removal.” Todorovic v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
621
F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2010); see also
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).
“An alien who: has been ordered removed; has been found under
§ 1208.16(c)(3) to be entitled to protection under the [CAT]; and is
subject to the provisions for mandatory denial of withholding of
removal under § 1208.16(d)(2) or (d)(3), shall be granted deferral of
removal to the country where he [] is more likely than not to be
tortured.”
8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a). Unlike the asylum and withhold-
ing-of-removal provisions of the INA, the CAT does not require
that the noncitizen prove that he would be tortured because of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion. Compare
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) with
8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b).
“In order to establish a due process violation, an alien must
show that he [] was deprived of liberty without due process of law,
and that the asserted error caused him substantial prejudice.” Gar-
cia v. Att’y Gen. of U.S.,
329 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2003) (cita-
tion omitted). “To show substantial prejudice, the petitioner must
show the alleged due process violation would have affected the
outcome of the case.” Avila,
560 F.3d at 1285.
In this case, the record evidence does not compel an out-
come in Tecpil’s favor. 2 Rather, the record fully supports the IJ’s
2 Under our case law, it is unclear which standard of review to apply to an
immigration judge’s negative reasonable fear determination. In fact, in a re-
cent case, Priva v. U.S. Attorney General, we expressly declined to decide
which standard of review applies in this situation.
34 F.4th 946, 957 n.5 (11th
USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 5 of 7
22-10579 Opinion of the Court 5
determination that Tecpil failed to demonstrate a reasonable fear
of persecution or torture in Mexico because the agency reasonably
determined that Tecpil failed to establish -- through evidence of
past persecution -- that he would be harmed in the future on ac-
count of a protected ground by gang members, members of the
government, or local “delinquents.” See Rodriguez, 735 F.3d at
1308. In support of this showing, Tecpil described an incident in
Mexico in which a gang stole his cellphone. However, the record
reveals that the theft was motivated by money and was not specif-
ically related to any of the five protected grounds under §
1231(b)(3) -- namely, race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).
To the extent Tecpil argues that he would face persecution
in Mexico based on his political opinion, this argument similarly
fails. Tecpil only provided a single instance in 2005 where he said
he was pressured to vote. However, he added that the pressure he
encountered was due to a generic and widespread effort to garner
votes in a local election, and not due to his specific political opinion.
Tecpil further admitted that, when an election is held, everyone
was pressured to vote if candidates felt as if they were going to lose,
Cir.), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Aug. 11, 2022) (No. 22-134). We mentioned
two possible standards of review, “the more deferential ‘facially legitimate and
bona fide reason’” and “the more demanding substantial evidence standard,”
but ultimately declined to specify which standard of review applies because,
even if reviewed for substantial evidence, the record did not “compel an out-
come in Priva’s favor.”
Id. As we’ll explain, we need not decide which stand-
ard of review to apply in this case either.
USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 6 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 22-10579
rather than targeting him or other individuals for a specific reason.
Thus, Tecpil did not show that he had been singled out for threats
based on an unidentified political opinion, and the IJ properly
found that this single instance failed to rise to the “extreme con-
cept” of persecution under our precedent. See Sepulveda,
401 F.3d
at 1231.
Nor does Tecpil’s fear of becoming a victim of criminal ac-
tivity qualify him for withholding of removal because there is no
evidence or indication of past persecution that would demonstrate
that he will more likely than not be persecuted upon returning to
Mexico. See
id. at 1232. In arguing that he is a member of a pro-
tected group who may be subject to a pattern or practice of perse-
cution, he says only that he will be the member of a group who
returns to Mexico from the United States and may be perceived as
wealthy. 8 C.F.R § 208.16(b)(2)(i)-(ii). Yet Tecpil failed to meet his
burden of proof through examples, specific instances, or any other
evidence that simply returning from the United States avails people
to a pattern or practice of persecution in Mexico. Id.
As for Tecpil’s claim for CAT relief, he made general com-
ments about the Mexican government failing to control gangs or
police failing to respond adequately to calls. However, these state-
ments are insufficient to establish government acquiescence to tor-
ture for the purposes of the CAT. Todorovic,
621 F.3d at 1324; see
also
8 C.F.R. §1208.16(c)(2). And Tecpil offered nothing to show
that he would more likely than not be tortured by, or with the ac-
quiescence of, the government or police.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16.
USCA11 Case: 22-10579 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 12/23/2022 Page: 7 of 7
22-10579 Opinion of the Court 7
Finally, Tecpil failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of
liberty without due process of law, or that the IJ’s alleged error in
asking too few questions caused him substantial prejudice. Garcia,
329 F.3d at 1222. Tecpil’s claim -- that he may have established a
basis for a political opinion claim if he had been asked further ques-
tions -- is speculative and without merit. Indeed, Tecpil was repre-
sented by counsel before the IJ, and his counsel did not object to
the questions or submit documents or evidence that might support
a political-opinion claim. Thus, Tecpil failed to show that the al-
leged due process violation would have affected the outcome of his
case. Avila,
560 F.3d at 1285.
In short, because the evidence supports the IJ’s determina-
tion that Tecpil failed to meet his burden of proof, we deny the
petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
