FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OTILIA DELACRUZ-PEREZ, AKA No. 18-72839 Othilia De La Cruz-Perez, Agency No. A205-274-151 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: CLIFTON, D.M. FISHER,*** and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Otilia de la Cruz-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal of the * 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). *** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief. We deny the petition. This court reviews “denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and reverse only if the record “compels” a contrary conclusion. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted). 1. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that any future harm that de la Cruz would experience from Los Zetas in Mexico would be only for economic reasons, and would not be on account of her political opinion or membership in her family. De la Cruz testified about incidents involving her husband’s cousins, but there is no contention that they were harmed on account of their political opinion or family membership. Moreover, de la Cruz submitted a 2 declaration stating that her “father was targeted because our family’s ranch is large, and there are multiple houses on it.”1 2. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that de la Cruz did not show that she would more likely than not be tortured if removed to Mexico.2 The BIA relied, in part, on the IJ’s finding that her brother had been removed to Mexico, now resides with de la Cruz’s mother in the same place that de la Cruz will live if she returns to Mexico, and has not been targeted by Los Zetas. In this petition, de la Cruz claims that the agency’s reliance on her brother’s situation in Mexico ignored evidence demonstrating that “a male who is targeted by the gangs is at far less personal risk than a woman who is targeted.” De la Cruz never raised an argument to the BIA that the IJ failed to consider evidence that being a woman would make her more vulnerable than her brother ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals