NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 7 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RGY, No. 20-71729 Petitioner, Agency No. A043-369-951 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted July 7, 2021 Portland, Oregon Before: O’SCANNLAIN, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge PAEZ RGY petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a denial of his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The facts are known to the parties, so we repeat them only as necessary. I * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that RGY failed to show that if he were removed to Mexico, he likely would be tortured within the meaning of the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). A Between 2006 and 2012, RGY was deported three separate times and lived in Mexico for a short period after each deportation. In total, RGY has lived in Mexico for approximately five-and-a-half months. He concedes that he was never tortured there, but past torture is “ordinarily the principal factor on which we rely” when assessing the risk of future torture upon removal. Gomez Fernandez v. Barr, 969 F.3d 1077, 1091 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005)). RGY argues instead that he faces threats of torture in connection with past altercations and disputes with criminals in Mexico. A local gang leader threatened RGY in 2006 or 2007, but the leader has not contacted or threatened RGY since the single episode over a decade ago. RGY and his family also received threats over the telephone related to his agreement to help distribute methamphetamine for a Mexican cartel, but RGY has not heard from the threatening caller since 2014. RGY has been involved in a few physical altercations as well, but he has never sustained serious injuries. Overall, RGY’s fear that he will be tortured relies on a speculative “series of 2 events, all of which must happen for torture to occur.” Medina-Rodriguez v. Barr, 979 F.3d 738, 750 (9th Cir. 2020). Because of the absence of past torture or credible ongoing threats of torture, RGY has not shown a likelihood of each step in the causal chain, and the record does not compel the conclusion that he is more likely than not to be tortured in Mexico. B Second, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that RGY failed to show that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Mexican government. RGY offered evidence of government corruption and ineffective law enforcement, but such general evidence does not compel the conclusion that officials would acquiesce in RGY’s torture. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals