NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO JAVIER JIMENEZ GARCIA, No. 20-70506 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-536-679 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Immigration Judge’s Decision Submitted February 1, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD, OWENS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Francisco Javier Jimenez Garcia (Petitioner) seeks review of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision concurring with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asylum officer’s conclusion that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable fear of persecution in Mexico. We have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and we deny the petition. We review the IJ’s reasonable fear factual findings for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). Under that standard, “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Petitioners subject to a reinstated removal order may seek either withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 832.1 To qualify for such relief, the petitioner must demonstrate in a reasonable fear interview a “reasonable possibility that he … would be persecuted on account of his … race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(c). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Petitioner failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus between the alleged persecution and a protected 1 While Petitioner references before this court the asylum officer’s determination that he did not have a reasonable fear of torture, Petitioner’s brief does not challenge this conclusion with any analysis other than stating, in passing, that the incidents he detailed as persecution were also torture. This is insufficient to raise a CAT claim and the issue is therefore forfeited. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). Even if Petitioner had properly preserved this claim, the record does not compel the conclusion the IJ erred as Petitioner does not demonstrate any “particularized threat of torture” or that he “would face any particular threat of torture beyond that of which all citizens of [Mexico] are at risk.” Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citation omitted). 2 ground. In Petitioner’s reasonable fear interview with the DHS asylum officer,2 Petitioner answered “no” when asked if he had “any problems in Mexico because of [his] political opinion,” his “religion,” “race, ethnicity, or nationality,” or “because [he was] part of a group … that people in Mexico see as different.” In testifying before both the DHS asylum officer and the IJ, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals