Hernanez-Carranza v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO HERNANEZ-CARRANZA, No. 22-158
Agency No.
Petitioner, A206-409-657
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2023**
Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Hernanez-Carranza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We review the BIA’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual
*
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).
findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d
1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Hernanez-
Carranza’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail because he did not
establish a nexus between his claimed or feared harm and any statutorily
protected ground. See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 551 (9th Cir.
2023) (“A nexus between the harm and a protected ground is a necessary
element of asylum and withholding of removal.”). Although “the line between
‘animus’ (providing nexus) and ‘purely personal retribution’ (no nexus) is a fine
one,” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1145 (9th Cir. 2021), the harm
Hernanez-Carranza suffered was based purely on personal retribution stemming
from rumors of infidelity between Hernanez-Carranza and a suspected cartel
member’s wife. This is insufficient to establish the required nexus. See
Antonyan v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1250, 1256 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Purely personal
retribution is, of course, not persecution on account of political opinion.”
(quoting Grava v. I.N.S., 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000))).
The BIA did not err in concluding that Hernanez-Carranza is not eligible
for relief under the CAT. The death threats the suspected cartel member made
against Hernanez-Carranza and the fistfight between the two men, without
more, do not show that “it is more likely than not” Hernanez-Carranza would be
2 22-158
“subject to harm amounting to torture . . . by or with the acquiescence of a
public official” if he returns to Mexico. See Garcia, 988 F.3d at 1147.
PETITION DENIED.
3 22-158