Cesar Gomez-Mocino v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 24 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR GOMEZ-MOCINO, No. 20-73558
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-297-674
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 19, 2023**
Portland, Oregon
Before: RAWLINSON and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS,*** District
Judge.
*
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 Brian M. Morris, United States District Judge for the
District of Montana, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Cesar Gomez-Mocino, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision to affirm the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
“Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ decision and also adds its own
reasoning, we review” both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decision. Duran-Rodriguez v.
Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027–28 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). “We review the
agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, but review de novo . . . purely
legal questions[,]” including “[w]hether a group constitutes a particular social
group.” Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 481–82 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).
1. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s finding that Gomez-Mocino’s
asylum application is time-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3).2 In any event,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez-Mocino’s
1
Gomez-Mocino does not petition for review of the denial of his application
for cancellation of removal.
2
Gomez-Mocino waived any challenge to the determination of untimeliness
by failing to raise the argument before the BIA or this court. See Gonzalez-
Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018). For the same reason,
Gomez-Mocino has also waived his claim for humanitarian asylum.
2
proposed social group of “Mexican citizens returning to Mexico after residing in
the United States for an extended period of time” is not cognizable, and Gomez-
Mocino did not establish past persecution. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d
1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting a similar proposed social group); see also
Antonio v. Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2023) (noting that
“[p]ersecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment
our society regards as offensive”) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
2. Substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal
because Gomez-Mocino failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Sarkar v. Garland, 39 F.4th 611, 622 (9th Cir. 2022). “The
ongoing safety of [Gomez-Mocino’s] family members [in Mexico] undermines a
reasonable fear of future persecution.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1066
(9th Cir. 2021); see also Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 719 (9th Cir. 2021)
(explaining that failure to establish eligibility of asylum generally results in a
failure to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal); Barajas-
Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359–60 (9th Cir. 2017) (clarifying that when a
petitioner does not establish persecution on account of any protected ground, the
nexus analysis under asylum and withholding of removal claims is the same).
3
3. Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief
because Gomez-Mocino failed to establish that he, in particular, is more likely than
not to be tortured if removed to Mexico. See Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071,
1078 (9th Cir. 2018). Gomez-Mocino’s generalized evidence of violence and
crime in Mexico, including his fear of gangs and being coerced into voting, the
attempted kidnapping of his brother, and the country conditions, “is insufficient to
establish prima facie eligibility for protection under the CAT.” Id. (citation and
alterations omitted).
PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
4