Jesus Lopez Mendoza v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS LOPEZ MENDOZA, No. 19-72417
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-743-536
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jesus Lopez Mendoza, a citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny in part and
*
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).
dismiss in part the petition.
We review only the BIA’s decision, except to the extent it adopted the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th
Cir. 2021). In doing so, we review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and factual
findings for substantial evidence. Id.
1. Asylum and Withholding of Removal. The agency’s finding that Lopez
Mendoza failed to establish past persecution is supported by substantial evidence
where he himself was never threatened or harmed and he relies on alleged events
that occurred to family members after he left Mexico. See Tamang v. Holder, 598
F.3d 1083, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the petitioner, “who was not in
the country at the time he claims to have suffered past persecution,” could not show
past persecution based on harm to his family because “we have not found that harm
to others my substitute for harm to an applicant”). Lopez Mendoza also did not
challenge the IJ’s internal-relocation finding before the BIA, depriving us of
jurisdiction to review this dispositive issue.1 See Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 960
(9th Cir. 2020); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) (requirements for asylum); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(b) (requirements for withholding of removal); Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr,
918 F.3d 1025, 1028–29 (9th Cir. 2019) (discussing asylum and withholding of
1
Even if this issue were exhausted, Lopez Mendoza failed to address it
“specifically and distinctly” in his opening brief and therefore forfeited the issue.
See Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020).
2
removal elements). For this reason alone, Lopez Mendoza’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail.
2. CAT. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
Lopez Mendoza is ineligible for CAT protection because he failed to show that he
in particular is likely to be tortured if removed to Mexico. See Lopez v. Sessions, 901
F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2018). The relevant evidence of record are country-
conditions reports that do not establish that Lopez Mendoza or individuals like him
face a particularized risk.
PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
3