Eric Lucero Reyes v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC DANIEL LUCERO REYES, No. 19-70997
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-143-098
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** District
Judge.
Eric Lucero Reyes petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(BIA) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
*
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 Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252 and “review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for
substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial,
and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Silva-Pereira v. Lynch,
827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
This standard is deferential, and we reverse the agency only if the evidence compels
a contrary conclusion. See Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017).
We deny the petition.1
Petitioner believed that the criminal organization known as La Familia
Michoacana (LFM) was targeting members of his family in Chihuahua, Mexico.
Between 2010 and 2018, six of Petitioner’s relatives living in Chihuahua died. The
circumstances of their deaths were relayed to Petitioner by his mother, who received
information from his aunt living in Mexico.
Petitioner did not present any evidence, beyond his aunt’s mere speculation,
that compels a finding that LFM was responsible for the deaths of his relatives in
Chihuahua and killed them on account of their family membership as opposed to on
account of personal disputes or random criminal activity. See Pagayon v. Holder,
1
Because we review the BIA’s consideration of the merits of Petitioner’s claims, we
need not reach Petitioner’s arguments that the Immigration Judge (IJ) erred in his
findings relating to the timeliness of Petitioner’s petition or the IJ’s statement
relating to his use of discretion.
2
675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A personal dispute is not, standing alone,
tantamount to persecution . . . .”); Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th
Cir. 2004) (holding that random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground).
As substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioner failed to establish
any causal nexus between the harm and Petitioner’s membership in a protected
group, Petitioner is not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. See Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2010).
Additionally, no record evidence compels a finding that Petitioner would be
unable to safely relocate within Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii). Petitioner
admitted that he has a common last name and he could not show how LFM would
know if he were to return to Mexico, let alone deduce that he was related to anyone
in Chihuahua.
As to Petitioner’s CAT claim, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding
that Petitioner is not likely to be subject to torture with the consent or acquiescence
of an individual acting in an official capacity. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2),
1208.18 (a)(1). Since Petitioner has not shown that his relatives were targeted
because of their familial relationship, no record evidence compels a finding that
Petitioner would be the target of any particularized threat of torture upon his return
to Mexico, Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008), or of “the type
of widespread abuse that would support CAT relief based on country conditions
3
alone,” United States v. Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d 1036, 1052 (9th Cir. 2012). Finally,
Petitioner is under thirty, and nothing in the record compels a finding that his
economic prospects are so dire as to render relocation unreasonable.2
PETITION DENIED
2
Petitioner’s Motion for Stay of Removal [Dkt. 1] is denied as moot.
4