FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 9 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL NAVA-LOPEZ, Nos. 17-71509 & 18-70016 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-734-580 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2023** Seattle, Washington Before: PAEZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and LIBURDI,*** District Judge. Daniel Nava-Lopez petitions the court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) (1) dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision * 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 T. Liburdi, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) and Convention Against Torture (CAT) and (2) denial of his motion to reopen immigration proceedings to introduce new credibility evidence. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petitions. Nava-Lopez is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 2008. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in August 2014. He testified that he feared returning to Mexico on the theory that criminal organizations would target him for extortion and kidnapping because of either his political opinion that government corruption in Mexico is endemic and wrong, or his membership in three particular social groups (PSGs). The three PSGs he proffered were (1) his family; (2) repatriates from the United States (which he called “pochos”); and (3) repatriates from the United States who speak English and have internalized American culture or mannerisms (termed “super pochos”). At his hearing, the IJ denied Nava-Lopez’s application for asylum and withholding of removal on four grounds. First, his asylum application was untimely. Second, his testimony relating to a past attempt at extortion was not credible. Third, he failed to show a nexus between the future harms he feared and any of the grounds for withholding of removal. And fourth, he failed to present objective evidence that the Mexican government was “more likely than not” to torture him or let him be 2 tortured such that he could qualify for CAT relief. Nava-Lopez appealed the IJ’s decision except as to the untimeliness of his asylum application, denial of CAT relief, and failure to prove past persecution. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994). It found that Nava-Lopez had failed to demonstrate (1) his membership in any recognized PSG, (2) a nexus between the harms he feared and any statutory ground that permits withholding of removal, or (3) any political opinion for which the Mexican government might persecute him. Nava-Lopez moved to reopen proceedings so …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals