NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO ROSAS-FELIX, No. 19-72337 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-218-308 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 12, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: BERZON, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Pedro Rosas-Felix, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Rosas-Felix also seeks review of * 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 BIA’s decision not to disturb the IJ’s determination that his conviction constituted a particularly serious crime (PSC), and that, as a result, he is statutorily ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural background of this case, we will not restate it here. We review the agency’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petition for review. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Rosas-Felix’s application for deferral of removal under CAT because the record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011); Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019). The BIA reasonably determined that the incidents Rosas-Felix experienced—including two beatings at the hands of unknown individuals in a United States prison, receipt of a threatening letter, and an incident in which his truck was shot at in Mexicali—did not establish that he would be subjected to torture if removed to Mexico, even when viewed in conjunction with the deaths, kidnapping, and harm his family members had suffered. Absent evidence of any “particularized threat of torture” beyond that which all citizens of 2 Mexico face, Rosas-Felix cannot obtain relief under CAT. Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Further, the failure of the police to bring the murderers of Rosas-Felix’s father and brother to justice “is not in itself sufficient to establish acquiescence in the crime.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). Although Rosas-Felix testified that his family fears the police because they believe the police work alongside organized crime, he admitted that he has no evidence of such corruption. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 363 (9th Cir. 2017) ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals