Arnulfo Vargas-Cortes v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 15 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARNULFO VARGAS-CORTES, No. 21-70322
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-490-813
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration Judge
Submitted March 11, 2022**
Portland, Oregon
Before: GRABER, BEA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Arnulfo Vargas-Cortes, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks
review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination that Petitioner failed to
establish a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture if he is removed to
*
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).
Mexico. Reviewing the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence, Andrade-Garcia v.
Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the determination that Petitioner did not
establish a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico The IJ properly
addressed both particularized social groups proposed by Petitioner. See Reyes v.
Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ construction of the phrase “particular social group” is
permissible and entitled to deference). Although Petitioner contends that Reyes
was wrongly decided, it is binding precedent for this court. The IJ also permissibly
determined that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a nexus between any risk of harm
and Petitioner’s membership in either of those alleged particular social
groups. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that an
applicant’s desire to be free from random criminal activity bears “no nexus” to a
protected ground).
2. Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Petitioner failed
to show that the Mexican government would acquiesce or be willfully blind to any
potential torture. Petitioner’s evidence that friends have told him that the police
work with cartels and that the police are ineffective at investigating crimes does
not compel a contrary finding. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836 (“[A] general
2
ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not
suffice to show acquiescence.”)
PETITION DENIED.
3