FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 1 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS FELIPE MENDOZA No. 20-73042 HERNANDEZ; MARIA A. SALAS ESPINOZA; RAUL D. SANOVAL Agency Nos. A208-930-199 SALAS; JOSE R. MENDOZA SALAS., A208-930-165 A208-930-166 Petitioners, A208-930-167 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2021** Pasadena, California * 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). Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LIBURDI,*** District Judge. Luis Felipe Mendoza Hernandez (Mendoza), his wife, Maria Salas Espinoza (Salas), and their two minor children (collectively, the petitioners), petition for review of the denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). “We review for substantial evidence factual findings underlying the denial of a withholding or CAT claim. . . .” Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 886 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Under substantial evidence review, “[t]o reverse [the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) factual finding], we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it.” Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted) (emphases in the original). When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) decision, our review “is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006), as amended (citation omitted). However, if “the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding some of its *** The Honorable Michael T. Liburdi, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 2 own reasoning, we review both decisions.” Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). The Immigration Judge denied asylum and withholding of removal because the petitioners did not establish the requisite nexus to a protected ground. The IJ denied CAT protection because the petitioners did not demonstrate a likelihood of torture with the acquiescence of a public official. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the petitioners had only a subjective fear of generalized violence in Mexico and failed to establish a nexus between a protected ground and any past or future persecution in Mexico. Mendoza testified that his father was killed outside his home in 2016, but he does not know by whom or why, and other family members were only threatened in a vague manner and were never harmed. Salas and Mendoza also testified that they were afraid to return to Mexico because of “criminal acts in Mexico,” “a lot of delinquency,” and “death all over the place.” However, we …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals