Jorge Paniagua-Baltazar v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE PANIAGUA-BALTAZAR, AKA No. 20-70341
Jorge Paniagua,
Agency No. A087-990-426
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 8, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: WARDLAW and BEA, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,** District
Judge.
Jorge Paniagua-Baltazar (“Paniagua”), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order of
removal affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Paniagua’s application for
asylum and withholding of removal. Paniagua does not claim that he suffered past
persecution, and he failed to establish that he has a well-founded fear of future
persecution on account of any protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42),
1158(b). The BIA properly concluded that none of Paniagua’s proposed social
groups are cognizable. There is no evidence that male deportees returning from
the United States to Mexico with significant family ties in the United States are
“perceived as a group by society” in Mexico. Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1127
(9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Matter of M–E–V–G–, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 240 (BIA
2014)). Moreover, Paniagua’s two family-based groups, children of Jose Paniagua
Vijil and immediate family members of Jose Paniagua Vijil, are not defined “in a
manner sufficiently distinct that the group[s] would be recognized . . . as [] discrete
class[es] of persons.” Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir.
2013) (en banc) (citation omitted). Thus, Paniagua has not shown that his
proposed family-based social groups have “social visibility” or “particularity.” Id.Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Paniagua failed
to establish that his fear of future harm is well-founded. Paniagua testified that his
2
stepmother, mother, paternal grandmother, two of his four siblings, and several
aunts and uncles remain in the region unharmed. Paniagua has not distinguished
himself from these similarly situated family members. See Hakeem v. INS, 273
F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is
weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live
in the country without incident . . . .” (citations omitted)). Moreover, as the BIA
found, Paniagua has failed adequately to explain why he could not relocate within
Mexico. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019)
(“[A]n applicant ‘does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant
could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant’s country of
nationality’” (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii))).
Because Paniagua has not established eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that he has not established the higher threshold of eligibility for
withholding of removal. See id.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Paniagua’s application
for relief under the CAT. Paniagua has not demonstrated that he will more likely
than not be tortured if removed to Mexico “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.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see also id.§ 1208.16(c)(2); Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001).
3
Paniagua’s evidence of generalized violence perpetrated by Mexican cartels is
insufficient to carry his burden with respect to this claim. See Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that, as to CAT relief,
generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to a
petitioner and insufficient to establish that torture is more likely than not);
Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 895 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The BIA also
cited case law that supported its conclusion that generalized evidence of violence
and crime in Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and insufficient to meet the
standard for relief under CAT.”).
DENIED.
4