Juan Garcia Garcia v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN JOSE GARCIA GARCIA, No. 15-73406
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-571-248
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 9, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: WATFORD and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO,***
District Judge.
Juan Jose Garcia Garcia (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
*
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).
***
The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his claims for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner is
ineligible for withholding of removal because Petitioner’s proposed social group is
not cognizable.1 Petitioner argues that he will be persecuted in Mexico as a
“Mexican male[] with long residence and family tie[s] to the United States.” He
argues that organized criminals in Mexico will kidnap, torture, or murder him
because they will believe that he or his family has ransom money after living and
working in the United States. The BIA concluded that this proposed social group
lacks social distinction in Mexican society. Although Petitioner submitted country
conditions evidence showing that criminals in Mexico sometimes prey upon people
who have been deported from the United States, this evidence does not compel the
conclusion that Mexican society perceives Mexican men with family ties to the
United States, and a long history of residing in the United States, as a distinct
group. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (per
curiam) (noting that “returning Mexicans from the United States” is “too broad to
1
The BIA also held that Petitioner could not establish persecution on
account of a political opinion either held by Petitioner or imputed to him.
Petitioner does not press a claim based on a political opinion in this petition for
review.
2
qualify as a cognizable social group”); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208,
214-17 (BIA 2014), vacated in part on other grounds by Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125 (9th Cir. 2016).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner is
not eligible for CAT relief because Petitioner failed to show it is more likely than
not that he will be tortured if he returns to Mexico. Petitioner testified that he was
beaten and robbed several times in Mexico. He did not report these incidents to
the police because he believed the police were corrupt and worked with the
criminals. He generally fears violence in Mexico but does not believe that anyone
is planning to personally target him. Petitioner also submitted country conditions
evidence showing generalized evidence of violence perpetrated by gangs, drug
cartels, and corrupt law enforcement officers. The evidence in the record does not
compel the conclusion that “it is more likely than not that [Petitioner] would be
tortured if removed to” Mexico. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); see Delgado-Ortiz, 600
F.3d at 1152.
PETITION DENIED.
3