Benito Camacho v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 22 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BENITO CRUZ CAMACHO, No. 15-73005 Petitioner, Agency No. A072-987-622 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order an Immigration Judge’s Decision Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Benito Cruz Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. * 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). Cruz Camacho’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Andrade- Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Cruz Camacho failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Mexico on account of a protected ground. See Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir. 1998) (no nexus to a protected ground where the evidence “at most shows that [petitioners] had been the victim of criminal activity”); Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group” (emphasis in original)). Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Cruz Camacho failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836- 37. We reject Cruz Camacho’s contentions that the IJ failed to provide a reasoned explanation for his decision or otherwise erred in his analysis. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-73005 15-73005 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Benito Camacho v. Jefferson Sessions 22 November 2017 Agency Unpublished 56345358a74fc8f65c0224ecf404e84f86b6d7a9

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals