Ricardo Zavala-Espinoza v. William Barr ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 25 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO ZAVALA-ESPINOZA, No. 18-71362
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-418-937
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 23, 2020**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Ricardo Zavala-Espinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) order dismissing his
appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for withholding
*
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).
of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, assuming Zavala-
Espinoza’s testimony was credible, he failed to show any individualized risk of
future persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009)
(requiring a showing that an applicant will “more likely than not” suffer future
persecution to merit withholding of removal). He admitted that his family does not
know why his half-brothers were killed five years ago, or who killed them. He
points to nothing in the record that compels the conclusion that, as a relative of
murdered individuals, he would be singled out for similar treatment. See id. at
1066 (requiring “a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to
prevail” on a withholding claim than on an asylum claim). Similarly, nothing in
the record compels a conclusion that he faces an individualized risk as an
Americanized Mexican returning to Mexico. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d
1173, 1180–81 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (holding that individualized risk requires
more than general fears common to an entire group).
1
Zavala-Espinoza previously applied for asylum, cancellation of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but withdrew all those
requests for various reasons. Withholding of removal is his only remaining claim.
2
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Zavala-
Espinoza’s claim was too generalized and speculative because he offered no
evidence beyond his own speculation about why his half-brothers were killed. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that speculative
possibilities are insufficient to show a fear of future persecution).
Accordingly, Zavala-Espinoza failed to establish a clear probability of future
persecution and his claim for withholding of removal fails. We do not reach the
other issues that Zavala-Espinoza raised but that the BIA did not consider. See
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing
the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION DENIED.
3