NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARIES GUADALUPE VILLA BUELNA, No. 18-71098 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-918-526 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 8, 2020** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Aries Guadalupe Villa Buelna, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention * 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). Against Torture (“CAT”).1 Villa Buelna fears persecution by unidentified extortionists whom she believes are responsible both for her brother’s murder in a drive-by shooting and for threatening phone calls made before and after her brother’s death. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Villa Buelna failed to demonstrate probable persecution attributable to her family ties. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); see also Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 886 (9th Cir. 2019) (reviewing denial of withholding for substantial evidence). Only Villa Buelna’s aunt and brother received threats, the most recent of which occurred in early 2010, and her aunt did not experience additional problems after relocating to another town in Mexico. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934–35 (9th Cir. 2004) (crediting temporal remoteness of persecution and safety of similarly situated family members as substantial evidence). Nothing in the record suggests her mother and sister, both of whom reside in Mexico, received similar threats. See id.; see also Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (considering threatened family members’ safety in petitioner’s home country “especially significant”). Indeed, Villa Buelna agreed that living in a different part of Mexico would allow her to avoid the harm she fears. See Gonzalez-Medina v. 1 Villa Buelna conceded at her hearing that she was statutorily time-barred from applying for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). 2 Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An applicant for withholding of removal cannot establish that it was more likely than not that she would be subject to future persecution ‘if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the [proposed country of removal].’” (alteration in original) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii))). Meanwhile, her brother’s apparent involvement in illegal activity suggests that the extortionists were otherwise motivated or that his murder was unrelated to the extortion demands. Those facts do not compel a finding that any persecution likely to be endured by Vila Buena would be on account of her family ties. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (stating “administrative findings of fact ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals