FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 7 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARBELLA VALLE-CRUZ, No. 18-71668
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-403-267
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 2, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Marbella Valle-Cruz seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ ("BIA") denial of her claims for withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Because we must uphold findings
of fact unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion, Guo v. Sessions, 897
*
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).
F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018), we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal
because Petitioner failed to demonstrate past persecution or a clear probability of
future persecution on account of a protected ground. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d
1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010). The evidence does not compel the conclusion that
Petitioner's brother was kidnapped on account of his membership in Petitioner's
family, rather than on account of the kidnappers' belief that he owned the store.
And the evidence does not compel the conclusion that a cartel extorted Petitioner’s
parents for any reason other than economic gain. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ("An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by
criminals motivated by theft . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground.").
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
because Petitioner did not meet her burden to show that she would "more likely
than not" be tortured "by or with the acquiescence of a government official or other
person acting in an official capacity" if she were removed to Mexico. Tamang, 598
F.3d at 1095. As explained above, the evidence does not compel the conclusion
that Petitioner would be targeted because of her membership in her family. And
"generalized evidence of violence and crime" in Mexico does not satisfy the
2
standard for CAT protection. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th
Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
PETITION DENIED.
3