Mancillas Franco v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO MANCILLAS FRANCO, No. 21-510
Agency No.
Petitioner, A205-313-049
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 13, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: SANCHEZ and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, ***
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 A. Jackson, United States District Judge for
the Middle District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
Francisco Mancillas Franco (“Mancillas-Franco”), a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the agency’s factual
findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo, see Flores
Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny the petition for
review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Mancillas-
Franco’s withholding of removal claim because he failed to demonstrate a
nexus between the harm he fears in Mexico and a statutorily protected ground.
An applicant for withholding of removal must establish that “race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” was or
will be “a reason” for the persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357–60 (9th Cir. 2017).
Here, the BIA concluded that Mancillas-Franco did not carry his burden
to show that he would be persecuted on account of his family membership.
Mancillas-Franco testified that he was never harmed when he lived in Mexico.
He fears returning to Mexico because he believes that his father was murdered
by a Mexican cartel after his father failed to make an extortion payment.
Because his father lived alone, however, Mancillas-Franco conceded it was
unknown who carried out the attack. Mancillas-Franco also testified about
2
relatives, namely his brother and cousins, who reside in Mexico and did not
mention any harm to these relatives. This record does not compel the
conclusion that Mancillas-Franco would be targeted by the cartel based on his
family membership. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015–16 (9th Cir.
2010) (holding that petitioner had not established a nexus to the particular social
group of his family where bandits, motivated by an attempt to steal his
grandfather’s farmland, murdered his family members). Mancillas-Franco’s
fear of generalized violence by Mexican cartels is insufficient to compel a
finding of a nexus to a protected ground. 1 Id.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
Mancillas-Franco does not face a likelihood of torture “‘inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official acting in
an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.’” B.R. v.
Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 844 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18). While
the country conditions evidence reflects police corruption and cartel violence in
Mexico generally, it fails to establish that Mancillas-Franco faces a
particularized, ongoing risk of future torture. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816
F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Where Petitioners have not shown they are
1
In light of our resolution of this claim, we need not reach Mancillas-Franco’s
additional arguments concerning the cognizability of his proposed particular
social group and the Mexican government’s ability and willingness to protect
him from cartel violence. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.
2004).
3
any more likely to be victims of violence and crimes than the populace as a
whole in Mexico, they have failed to carry their burden.”).
PETITION DENIED.
4