Ignacio Ramirez-Larius v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 10 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    IGNACIO RAMIREZ-LARIUS,                         No.    20-70549
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A201-222-932
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 7, 2022**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: BERZON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District
    Judge.
    Ignacio Ramirez-Larius (“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 Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
    the Eastern District of New York, 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.
    Petitioner argues that he will more likely than not face persecution on
    account of his membership in his family if he returns to Mexico. The BIA rejected
    this claim, reasoning that, even assuming Petitioner’s family was a cognizable
    social group, Petitioner had failed to establish any nexus between the potential
    threats he faced in Mexico and his family membership.1 See Barajas-Romero v.
    Lynch, 
    846 F.3d 351
    , 357-60 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that an applicant for
    withholding of removal must demonstrate that a protected ground under the Act
    was “a reason” for any past or likely future persecution).
    The BIA’s conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner
    testified that his uncle was killed “a long, long time ago” and that his sister was
    killed in 2007. He does not know why either family member was killed, though he
    thinks his uncle was killed because of an intra-family dispute and his sister might
    have been killed because a cartel believed that his family was involved in drugs.
    Petitioner’s other family members have remained in Mexico without being harmed.
    1
    Because we conclude that this aspect of the BIA’s reasoning is supported
    by substantial evidence, we need not decide whether the BIA correctly concluded,
    in the alternative, that Petitioner’s family is not a cognizable “particular social
    group” under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1101
    (a)(42).
    2
    Petitioner testified that, after his sister was killed, he received a phone call from a
    person telling him that he would be killed if he returned to Mexico. The record is
    inconsistent regarding whether the caller was anonymous or was a family member.
    Petitioner also submitted general evidence about the violence being perpetrated by
    drug cartels and corruption among law enforcement officers in Mexico. In light of
    the lack of nonspeculative evidence that his relatives were killed because of their
    family membership, and in light of the fact that other family members have
    remained in Mexico unharmed, Petitioner’s evidence does not compel the
    conclusion that Petitioner would more likely than not suffer persecution “on
    account of” his membership in his family. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 
    918 F.3d 1025
    , 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Under [the substantial evidence] standard, we must
    uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary
    conclusion.”).
    Substantial evidence also supports the agency’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. See Delgado-Ortiz v.
    Holder, 
    600 F.3d 1148
    , 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “generalized evidence
    of violence and crime in Mexico [that was] not particular to Petitioners [was]
    insufficient to meet [the CAT] standard”).
    PETITION DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-70549

Filed Date: 3/10/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/10/2022