Vallez-Cortes v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CARLOS VALLEZ-CORTES, No. 21-87
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-988-927
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: GILMAN***, FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Vallez-Cortes petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of an
immigration judge (IJ) denying his applications for withholding of removal and
relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against
*
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 Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Torture (CAT). Vallez-Cortes is a citizen of Mexico. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s reasoning and
added some of its own, we review the BIA’s decision and those parts of the IJ’s
decision upon which it relied.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir.
2021). We deny the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Vallez-Cortes does not qualify for withholding of removal because he was not a
member of either of his proposed particular social groups. Vallez-Cortes argues
that he is part of a proposed social group of individuals with “property
ownership/landownership,” but he admits that he does not own any land in
Mexico. Vallez-Cortes further argues that he is a member of the Garcia
Gutierrez family. But substantial evidence—including Vallez-Cortes’s own
testimony that his brother is his only family in Mexico—supports the agency’s
determination that Vallez-Cortes does not have a familial relationship with the
Garcia Gutierrez family. Cf. Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015)
(discussing the family as a particular social group).
Although we need not consider the agency’s alternative grounds for
denying relief, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that
Vallez-Cortes did not show that the people who robbed the Garcia Gutierrez
family are persons whom the “government is unable or unwilling to control.”
Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2006). The record
reflects that Mexican authorities investigated and prosecuted one of the robbers,
2 21-87
who received jail time. See Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1063
(9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (looking “to evidence of how the police responded
to . . . requests for protection” to determine whether there was an “acquiescent
government”).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Vallez-
Cortes does not qualify for CAT relief. Vallez-Cortes points to country
conditions reports discussing violence in Mexico. But generalized evidence of
violence and crime is insufficient to prove that a specific individual faces a
likelihood of mistreatment rising to the level of torture. Lalayan v. Garland, 4
F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that submitted country reports were
insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief because they did not indicate
any particularized risk of torture). To the extent that Vallez-Cortes points to the
robbery of the Garcia Gutierrez family to argue particularized risk, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vallez-Cortes is not a
member of the family. In any event, Vallez-Cortes has not shown that the
robbery was “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment that is
specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering,”
which is required for mistreatment to amount to torture. Lopez v. Sessions, 901
F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).
PETITION DENIED.
3 21-87