NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUSTAVO MORALES-MORALES, AKA No. 15-70134
Mario Morales-Morales,
Agency No.
Petitioner, A088-635-878
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an
Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 8, 2018**
Seattle Washington
Before: GOULD, IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,*** Chief District
Judge
*
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 Nancy D. Freudenthal, Chief United States District
Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.
1
Gustavo Morales-Morales (“Morales”), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of a final order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying his application for protection under Article III of the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). Morales fears future torture from the cartels whom he contends
will attempt to recruit him anywhere he goes in Mexico because he was deported
from the United States following a drug conviction, and that the Mexican police
will acquiesce in his torture. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not
recount them here. We deny the petition.
Because the BIA issued a written opinion, we review that opinion. See
Morgan v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2008). But, insofar as the BIA
relied on the opinion of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) as a statement of reasons, we
look to the IJ’s decision “as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion.”
Kozulin v. I.N.S., 218 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2000). We review the BIA’s
decision for substantial evidence. See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481
(1992).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Morales failed to
establish it was more likely than not that he would be tortured with government
acquiescence if he returned to Mexico because he had not suffered past torture
from the cartels, and there was no evidence the police were aware of the cartel’s
2
recruitment threats. Further, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that
Morales did not establish that internal relocation in Mexico was unreasonable.
Morales argues Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 775 (9th Cir. 2011) requires
reversal as the BIA and IJ did not assess his risk of torture in the aggregate.
However, the supposition that Morales would be recruited, tortured on refusal, and
the police would acquiesce are not each risks of torture. The only risk of torture
Morales fears is from the cartel, which the IJ adequately addressed. Finally,
Morales argues error in failing to assess whether the Mexican government has been
effective in efforts to protect victims of drug-related violence. The BIA considered
the background documents in the record and the IJ’s assessment of those
documents; the evidence in the record does not compel a contrary result. See
Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481 & n.1; Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143
(9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION DENIED.
3