NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DELIA DOLORES AGUIRRE OCHOA, No. 15-71520
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-875-226
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted March 12, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ,** District Judge.
Petitioner Delia Dolores Aguirre Ochoa (“Ochoa”), a native and citizen of
Mexico, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
dismissing her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA agreed with the immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
judge (“IJ”) that Ochoa failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution
because: (1) she failed to prove that the Mexican government is unwilling and
unable to protect her; and (2) in any event, she was able to relocate safely and
reasonably inside Mexico. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(1), and
we deny the petition.
We uphold an IJ’s ruling unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary based on evidence in the record.” Bringas-
Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations
marks omitted). Here, the IJ supported each of his determinations with substantial
evidence.
First, the evidence in the record does not compel the conclusion that the
Mexican government is unwilling and unable to protect Ochoa from the drug
cartels. As the IJ pointed out, the Mexican government has instituted a series of
measures to combat corruption and organized crime. These measures alone
demonstrate the willingness of the Mexican government to protect its citizens from
harms caused by the cartels. Thus, substantial evidence supported the IJ’s first
determination.
Second, the evidence in the record does not compel the conclusion that
Ochoa cannot safely and reasonably relocate within Mexico. She has not suffered
any past persecution: She was not harmed or threatened when she lived in Mexico
2 15-71520
in 2012. Nor have any of her family members been harmed while living in
Mexico. Thus, substantial evidence also supported the IJ’s second determination.
For these reasons, the IJ concluded that Ochoa did not demonstrate an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution or torture. We agree.
PETITION DENIED.
3 15-71520