Contreras v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 21-956, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 36.1, Page 1 of 4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Luis Abraham Contreras, No. 21-956
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-262-466
v.
MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023.**
Portland, Oregon
Before: RAWLINSON, BEA, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Luis Abraham Contreras (Contreras), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal of the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of relief under
*
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: 21-956, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 36.1, Page 2 of 4
the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1
“[W]e review the factual determinations underlying denials of CAT
relief for substantial evidence.” Salguero Sosa v. Garland, 55 F.4th 1213, 1217
(9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). “Under that highly deferential standard, we
must accept the BIA’s factual findings as conclusive unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. at 1217-18(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“To qualify for CAT relief, an applicant must establish that it is more
likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal. . . .” Id. at 1221 (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). “In assessing CAT claims, the BIA must consider all evidence,
including evidence that the applicant could relocate to a part of the country of
removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured. . . .” Dawson v. Garland,
998 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Contrary to Contreras’s assertion that he was entitled to CAT relief
because he credibly testified that he intended to return to Nayarit, Mexico, “in
assessing eligibility for CAT relief, the agency must consider the possibility of
relocation—without regard for the reasonableness of relocation that is
1
“When the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision with a citation to Matter of
Burbano[,] [20 I&N Dec. 872 (BIA 1994),] and also adds its own comments, as
it did here, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ.” Gonzalez-
Castillo v. Garland, 47 F.4th 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).
2 21-956
Case: 21-956, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 36.1, Page 3 of 4
considered in other types of applications (asylum and withholding of removal
under the [Immigration and Nationality Act]”). Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland,
32 F.4th 696, 705 (9th Cir. 2022), as amended (citation omitted) (emphases in
the original). “[T]he reasonableness of a relocation is not relevant to a CAT
claim, where the agency considers only whether safe relocation is possible, not
whether it is reasonable (or comfortable or convenient). . . .” Id. (citation
omitted). “[E]ven if the BIA treats [the petitioner’s] testimony as credible, the
agency need not find his evidence persuasive or sufficient to meet the burden of
proof.” Dai v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief because (1) the
BIA and the IJ applied the proper legal standard for internal relocation and
properly concluded that Contreras could relocate to another part of Mexico that
did not have levels of cartel violence and drug activity similar to Nayarit; (2)
Contreras was not subjected to past torture, see Gonzalez-Castillo, 47 F.4th at
982 (explaining that “[p]ast torture is a principal factor in deciding the
likelihood of future torture”) (citation omitted); and (3) although “the country
conditions evidence acknowledged crime and police corruption in Mexico
generally . . . the evidence fail[ed] to show” that Contreras “faces a
particularized, ongoing risk of future torture.” Tzompantzi-Salazar, 32 F.4th at
706-07 (citation omitted).2
2
Contreras limited his challenge to the agency’s denial of his CAT claim, and
has waived any remaining claims, including the BIA’s denial of his contention
3 21-956
Case: 21-956, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 36.1, Page 4 of 4
PETITION DENIED.
that his removal proceedings should have been terminated due to alleged
deficiencies in the notice to appear, “because he did not contest this aspect of
the [BIA’s] decision in his opening brief.” Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099,
1102 (9th Cir. 2020).
4 21-956