Adolfo Cortes-Ambrosio v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 13 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADOLFO ALEGUNDO CORTES- No. 20-70081
AMBROSIO,
Agency No. A205-065-127
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 17, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: BYBEE, CALLAHAN, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Adolfo Cortes-Ambrosio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion 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).
reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and
we deny the petition.
We review denials of motions to reopen for an abuse of discretion.
Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 32 F.4th 794, 800 (9th Cir. 2022). The BIA can deny
a motion to reopen on “at least” three independent grounds: (1) “failure to establish
a prima facie case for the relief sought”; (2) “failure to introduce previously
unavailable, material evidence”; and (3) failure to show that the movant would be
entitled to the discretionary grant of relief sought. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cortes-Ambrosio’s motion
to reopen because his new evidence failed to establish prima facie eligibility for the
relief sought. With respect to his asylum and withholding claims, Cortes-
Ambrosio’s evidence does not establish a nexus between his alleged future
persecution and his social group—his “family kinship/ties and . . . his family’s
landownership.” He describes two instances—one in 2000 and one in 2018—in
which his brothers were threatened by organized criminals, but the record does not
show that their family ties were “a reason” that they were threatened. See
Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890–91 (9th Cir. 2021). Further, while
Cortes-Ambrosio’s updated country conditions evidence points to an increase in
2
violence and cartel activity, it describes a generalized risk of harm rather than a
risk specific to people with certain family ties or familial land ownership. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be
free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang
members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). With respect to his claim under
the Convention Against Torture, Cortes-Ambrosio failed to show prima facie
eligibility for relief because such generalized evidence is insufficient to show
“more likely than not” that he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence
of the Mexican government. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152
(9th Cir. 2010).1
PETITION DENIED.
1
Cortes-Ambrosio also argues that the BIA failed to adequately consider the
evidence in support of his motion to reopen. However, this argument is
conclusory, and he fails to point to any indication that the BIA did not consider all
of the evidence before it. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771–72 (9th Cir.
2011).
3