FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO BUCIO ABARCA, No. 18-72458 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-749-599 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and SIMON,*** District Judge. * 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 Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. Pedro Bucio-Abarca (Bucio-Abarca), a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) negative reasonable fear determination and the IJ’s finding that Bucio-Abarca was not a credible witness. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence and must uphold the determination “unless, based on the evidence, any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Bucio-Abarca failed to show that the harm he feared was on account of a protected ground. Bucio-Abarca testified that his fear of returning to Mexico stems from an incident in 2009. Bucio-Abarca was driving on a highway in California when he was stopped by Immigration officials. The officials asked if they could search the vehicle, and Bucio-Abarca stated that the vehicle belonged to someone else. Bucio-Abarca was detained, processed, and allowed to return to Mexico. After returning to Mexico, Bucio-Abarca learned that officers had impounded the vehicle, found drugs inside, and issued a warrant for his arrest. The owner of the vehicle contacted Bucio-Abarco and asked for his location in Mexico and a 2 description of his clothing. Subsequently, unknown individuals in a truck arrived and took Bucio-Abarca to a house where they “tied [his] feet and chest,” “pull[ed]” his body, slapped him, and demanded to know where the drugs from the vehicle were. When asked why the assailants harmed him, Bucio-Abarca responded: “Because they wanted their drugs.” Bucio-Abarca testified that the same individuals threatened him on a second occasion and stated: “[R]emember what we told you? You have to pay whatever they took away from you over there.” Bucio-Abarca maintains that he was targeted based on his membership in the proposed social groups of “individuals who have interfered with drug trafficking operations” and “perceived drug traffickers.” Bucio-Abarca also asserts that “the cartel members likely imputed some sort of anti-drug or anti-cartel political opinion onto him.” However, we have held that a “desire to be free from harassment by criminals . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals