NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO AVENDANO-MENDIOLA, No. 16-73502
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-082-694
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 6, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GUIROLA,*** District
Judge.
Antonio Avendano-Mendiola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
*
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 Louis Guirola, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Mississippi, sitting by designation.
appeal from the order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. To qualify for withholding, an applicant must show that “it is more
likely than not that he would be subject to persecution” because of a protected
ground. Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting INS v. Stevic,
467 U.S. 407, 429–30 (1984)). Even assuming Avendano’s credibility, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that he did not show past or likely future
persecution on account of a protected ground; he only claimed that gang members
would rob him. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[The]
desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence
by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). And, he presented no
evidence that “his persecutors actually imputed a political opinion to him” because
of a police report he filed. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th
Cir. 2001) (quoting Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489 (9th Cir. 1997)); see also
Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch, 849 F.3d 800, 802–03 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). To the
extent the BIA required Avendano to show he could not reasonably relocate within
Mexico as a prerequisite to granting withholding, there was no error because he
failed to establish persecution because of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (ii). And, contrary to Avendano’s assertions, the IJ and BIA
2
considered evidence of country conditions about violence and corruption, and the
BIA did not engage in fact-finding or rely on a lack of corroboration. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1044–45 (9th Cir. 2009).
2. Even assuming Avendano’s credibility, the BIA did not err in finding
that substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. Avendano failed to show
“it is more likely than not” that the Mexican government would torture him or
acquiesce in his torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Thus, even if the BIA erred
in requiring Avendano to show he could not relocate within Mexico, see Maldonado
v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1163–64 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc), any error was harmless.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3