NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS MENDOZA-RODRIGUEZ, No. 20-71965
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-273-077
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: GILMAN,*** GOULD, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Mendoza-Rodriguez, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal from an immigration
*
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 Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that any
persecution Mendoza-Rodriguez suffered lacked a nexus to his membership in his
family-based social group. Mendoza-Rodriguez testified that the unidentified
criminals who stole his family’s cattle wanted to “enrich themselves.” See Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2010). There is no evidence that his
familial status was “a reason” for the attack, let alone a “central reason.” Barajas-
Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). Mendoza-Rodriguez does not
believe that the cattle thieves will harm his family in the future, and since the
incident in 2006, they have not harassed or threatened his family, who continue to
live on the ranch.
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision to deny CAT
relief. Mendoza-Rodriguez says that if he returns to Mexico he will “go back to the
business of cows” and believes he will be robbed like his family was, especially
because criminals will target him as someone returning from the United States. But
Mendoza-Rodriguez does not contend that his family’s past mistreatment
amounted to torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(i); see also Nuru v. Gonzales,
404 F.3d 1207, 1217–18 (9th Cir. 2005). There also is no evidence that the cattle
2
thieves, or any other bad actors, know Mendoza-Rodriguez’s whereabouts or have
any interest in him. And the country-conditions evidence does not compel the
conclusion that the cattle thieves likely would torture Mendoza-Rodriguez if they
located him. The evidence therefore “does not establish that any step in this
hypothetical chain of events is more likely than not to happen, let alone that the
entire chain will come together to result in the probability of torture.” Medina-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 979 F.3d 738, 751 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting In re J-F-F-, 23 I. &
N. Dec. 912, 917–18 (A.G. 2006)).
3. We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza-Rodriguez’s petition for
review of the agency’s discretionary decision to deny voluntary departure. Corro-
Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1176–77 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
3