Garcia Mondragon v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDDY GARCIA MONDRAGON, No. 22-1147
Agency No.
Petitioner, A099-471-814
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 12, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Freddy Garcia Mondragon, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of
an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for withholding of
*
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).
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 Where, as
here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions. Garcia-
Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018). We review legal
conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Ruiz-
Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the facts and recite them only as necessary. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).
We deny the petition as to Garcia Mondragon’s withholding of removal
claim because substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that gang
members beat him because they wanted to recruit him, not because of a protected
ground. See Reyes-Corado v. Garland, 76 F.4th 1256, 1265 (9th Cir. 2023) (“For
withholding of removal, an applicant must show that a protected ground would be
‘a reason’ for the persecution . . . .” (quoting Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d
351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017))); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“An alien’s desire to be free from . . . random violence by gang members bears no
nexus to a protected ground.”).
We also deny the petition as to Garcia Mondragon’s CAT claim because he
did not exhaust his administrative remedies, and the Attorney General properly
1
Garcia Mondragon does not challenge the ruling that his asylum
application was untimely.
2 22-1147
raises his failure to exhaust. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Umana-Escobar v.
Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023). Garcia Mondragon’s brief to the BIA
did not meaningfully challenge the IJ’s finding that he was ineligible for CAT
relief because he failed to show he would be tortured “by, or at the instigation of,
or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.18(a)(1). The BIA correctly concluded that Garcia Mondragon waived any
challenge to the IJ’s CAT finding.
PETITION DENIED.
3 22-1147