NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 02 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS GUSTAVO AMEZCUA GONZALEZ, No. 17-73229 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-006-731 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 10, 2019 Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER, CALLAHAN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Gustavo Amezcua Gonzalez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we grant the petition in part, deny it in part, and remand to the agency for further proceedings. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Amezcua Gonzalez’s withholding of removal claim. “Where the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration judge’s reasoning, [the court] review[s] both decisions.” Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012)). Pursuant to statute and regulation, the Attorney General may not remove an unlawfully present alien to a particular country if that person’s “life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). A withholding of removal applicant must demonstrate that the asserted protected ground is “a reason” for persecution. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–59 (9th Cir. 2017). Amezcua Gonzalez contends that La Familia Michoacána targeted him for violence based on his family connections, a well-recognized distinct social group. See Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 910 (9th Cir. 2018). We conclude, however, that substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that La Familia Michoacána targeted Amezcua Gonzalez based on his refusal to join the cartel, not because of any family relationship. Accordingly, we agree with the 2 agency that Amezcua Gonzalez failed to demonstrate past persecution. We deny Amezcua Gonzalez’s petition for review as to his withholding of removal claim. 2. We do not find, however, that the BIA’s conclusions that Amezcua Gonzalez failed to establish that he suffered past torture and that Mexican officials were willfully blind to that abuse are supported by substantial evidence. The convention’s implementing regulations define torture to include “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person[.]” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). In this case, Amezcua Gonzalez credibly testified that drug cartel members abducted him in broad daylight on the street outside a grocery store. Two police officers, sitting in their car across the street, heard Amezcua Gonzalez’s screams for help and turned their eyes away. Amezcua Gonzalez’s kidnappers beat him with a gun and held a knife to his throat; he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals