NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUTH NUNEZ-CAMPOS, AKA Ruth No. 20-70942
Nunez-De Bayona,
Agency No. A095-764-364
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 8, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: WATFORD and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,***
District Judge.
Ruth Nunez-Campos petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
*
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, United States District Judge for
the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 2
order upholding the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Nunez-
Campos failed to meet her burden for obtaining protection under CAT. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief under CAT
because Nunez-Campos failed to establish that her husband “would even bother to
contact her, much less torture her,” or that the Mexican government would
acquiesce in any torture. Before us, Nunez-Campos contends that the agency
failed to consider all evidence of torture, namely country conditions reports
indicating the prevalence of domestic violence against women in Mexico. But the
IJ adequately considered and discussed the country conditions evidence, and the
“circumstances of [Mexican] women in general . . . do not vitiate the agency’s
specific findings” as to Nunez-Campos in particular. Dawson v. Garland, 998
F.3d 876, 885 (9th Cir. 2021). Nunez-Campos does not challenge the IJ’s finding
that she failed to establish that her husband would torture her, and the record does
not compel a contrary conclusion. The agency thus properly denied her request
for relief under CAT.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.