FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 12 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUZ MARIA RAMIREZ-ALCARAZ, No. 16-73212 AKA Maria Alcarez-Lopez, Agency No. A091-684-734 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 6, 2019** Phoenix, Arizona Before: CLIFTON, IKUTA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Luz Ramirez-Alcaraz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the BIA’s decision dismissing her appeal from an IJ’s order, denying her application for 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”). She additionally asserts the BIA abused its discretion in denying her a continuance while her U-visa application was processed. We deny the petition. Because all of Ramirez-Alcaraz’s past persecution occurred in the United States, her eligibility for withholding of removal depended on her ability to demonstrate it is “more likely than not” she would be persecuted in Mexico on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). The IJ denied her withholding of removal claim after making the dispositive finding that she “could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of Mexico, and, under all circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect her to do so.” See id.; Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 337-38 (9th Cir. 2011). Ramirez-Alcaraz’s testimony that her ex-husband could locate her anywhere in Mexico because of his connections to a cartel was speculative and unsupported, and no other evidence in the record suggests her husband would be able to find her anywhere in Mexico. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ramirez-Alcaraz failed to demonstrate she could not reasonably relocate within Mexico to avoid future persecution, and her claim for withholding of removal accordingly fails. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2); Gonzalez-Medina, 641 F.3d at 338. 2 Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ramirez- Alcaraz failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not the Mexican government would torture her or acquiesce in her torture.1 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The absence of past persecution and her ability to relocate within Mexico are also relevant to this determination. Id. § 1208.16(c)(3); see also Edu v. Holder, 624 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he existence of past torture ‘is ordinarily the principal factor on which we rely.’” (quoting Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005))). The BIA concluded that Ramirez-Alcaraz’s allegations that her ex-husband was a member of a drug cartel and would be able to locate her anywhere in Mexico were “unsubstantiated and speculative.” She was unsure what cartel he allegedly worked for and the only evidence she presented of her ex- husband’s cartel connections was a single hearsay statement from 2014. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals