NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AGUSTIN DE JESUS CARO-CONDE, No. 20-71074
AKA Augustin Caro-Conde,
Agency No. A206-443-889
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, McKEOWN, Circuit Judge, and RESTANI,***
Judge.
Agustin Caro-Conde 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 Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
(“BIA”) order denying his application for withholding of removal and for relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Caro-Conde’s application is based
on his fear that, if he is returned to Mexico, he will be persecuted or tortured on
account of his sexuality. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Since the
BIA’s decision partially relies on the immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) reasoning, we
review both decisions. Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). In doing
so, we review legal questions de novo and the agency’s factual findings for
substantial evidence. Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir. 2021). We
deny the petition.
Whether we review de novo or for substantial evidence, the result is the same:
there is no error in the IJ’s denial of Caro-Conde’s application for withholding of
removal, based on a “fundamental change in circumstances” that rebutted Caro-
Conde’s well-founded fear of persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B). The IJ
properly considered the facts that Caro-Conde’s rapist had left Veracruz; that Caro-
Conde had left the school where he was abused and had not suffered harassment and
beatings for several years; that Caro-Conde no longer knew where his uncles were
located; and that Caro-Conde’s uncles were wanted by police. See Iraheta-Martinez
v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 957 (9th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that an IJ may consider
changes in an applicant’s personal circumstances—not only changed country
conditions—to determine whether the government has rebutted an applicant’s well-
2
founded fear of persecution.). The BIA adopted the IJ’s factual findings and
concluded that Caro-Conde is not eligible for withholding of removal. Substantial
evidence supports that conclusion.
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s conclusion that Caro-Conde
failed to establish eligibility for protection under CAT. “To obtain CAT relief, the
applicant must show that it is more likely than not that he will face torture in the
country of removal.” Iraheta-Martinez, 12 F.4th at 959. Assuming without deciding
that Caro-Conde’s abuse constituted “torture,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1), the record
does not compel the conclusion that it is “more likely than not” that Caro-Conde will
suffer future torture if returned to Mexico, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Although
Caro-Conde argues that the Mexican government does not adequately protect
members of the LGBTQ community, we find no error in the IJ’s determination that
Caro-Conde failed to show that he would personally suffer torture if returned to
Mexico. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Caro-Conde could
avoid future persecution by relocating to areas of Mexico outside of Veracruz, and
that such relocation would be reasonable.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3