Garfias-Mendoza v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 21-659, 02/22/2023, DktEntry: 37.1, Page 1 of 3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Christian Giovanni Garfias-Mendoza, No. 21-659
Petitioner, Agency No. A046-673-239
v.
MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Christian Giovanni Garfias-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
dismissing his appeal from an order of an immigration judge denying his
application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
*
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).
Case: 21-659, 02/22/2023, DktEntry: 37.1, Page 2 of 3
Where, as here, the Board adopts and affirms the immigration judge’s
order under Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (B.I.A. 1994), and
expresses no disagreement with the immigration judge’s decision, we review
the immigration judge’s order as if it were the Board’s. Chuen Piu Kwong v.
Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2011). We review the decisions for
substantial evidence and will not disturb the agency’s factual findings unless the
record compels a contrary conclusion. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014).
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Garfias-
Mendoza failed to establish eligibility under CAT. Garfias-Mendoza relies
exclusively on general country conditions evidence of cartel violence and
corruption in Mexico to establish government acquiescence. Although the
submitted reports describe widespread violence throughout Mexico and general
ineffectiveness by the Mexican government to address it, they do not prove that
the Mexican government would acquiesce in the torture of its citizens at the
hands of cartels. B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 845 (9th Cir. 2022); see
Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] general
ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will
not suffice to show acquiescence.”). The reports also demonstrate that the
Mexican government has “taken steps to combat [cartel] violence,” and even
though “these steps have not achieved the desired goals,” they do not compel a
finding of government acquiescence. Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1035.
2 21-659
Case: 21-659, 02/22/2023, DktEntry: 37.1, Page 3 of 3
Therefore, we uphold the agency’s denial of relief.
2. Contrary to Garfias-Mendoza’s argument, the agency was not required
to assess the likelihood of torture by cartels. Garfias-Mendoza failed to establish
state action, and that alone forecloses CAT relief. Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at
1035; Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010). As a result, we
need not consider whether the agency failed to assess the aggregate likelihood
of torture from all sources, including any risks Garfias-Mendoza may face as a
returning deportee. In any event, the Board expressly said that Garfias-Mendoza
“has yet to identify the objective evidence in the record that would establish the
required likelihood of future torture in Mexico.” He does not acknowledge or
meaningfully challenge that conclusion.
3. Garfias-Mendoza criticizes the agency’s alternative ground for denying
relief: that Garfias-Mendoza could relocate to a different part of Mexico where
he is unlikely to be tortured. Because the lack of government acquiescence
forecloses Garfias-Mendoza’s claim, we need not consider that issue.
The motion to stay removal (Dkt. No. 2) is denied. The temporary stay of
removal is lifted.
PETITION DENIED.
3 21-659