NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FIDEL LOPEZ-MORALES, No. 20-72289
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-312-056
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 7, 2022**
Portland, Oregon
Before: GRABER and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and REISS,*** District Judge.
Petitioner Fidel Lopez-Morales petitions for review of a decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of an Immigration Judge
denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
*
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 Christina Reiss, United States District Judge for the District of
Vermont, sitting by designation.
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, and we deny the petition.
“We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for
substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.
2019). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 481 & n.1 (1992)). Where, as here, a petitioner admits to not suffering past
persecution, he “must establish a well-founded fear of future persecution . . . .” Id.
at 1029. A petitioner “does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if [he] could
avoid persecution by relocating to another part of [his] country of
nationality . . . [and] under all the circumstances it would be reasonable to expect
[him] to do so.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii).
Petitioner claims that if he returns Mexico, the person responsible for his
brother’s death will find and harm him even if he relocates. But Petitioner testified
that he has never been personally threatened or harmed. And though his family
received several anonymous death threats, according to Petitioner, the threats were
in response to his family pursuing a police investigation into his brother’s death. But
Petitioner had nothing to do with pursuing the investigation, and his family has not
contacted the police since filing a report in 2016. In fact, there is no evidence that
the person responsible for his brother’s death has any interest whatsoever in
2
Petitioner, and his family members in Mexico remain unharmed. See Santos-Lemus
v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[A] family member’s continuing
safety is an even more persuasive factor in considering a petitioner’s well-founded
fear.”), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081
(9th Cir. 2013). The record evidence does not compel reversal of the agency’s
internal relocation finding. See Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028.
To qualify for withholding of removal, Petitioner must satisfy a more stringent
standard and demonstrate that it is “more likely than not” he would be persecuted on
account of a protected ground if returned to Mexico. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2).
Because he has not established eligibility for asylum, “he necessarily fails to satisfy
the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.” Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390
F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, to qualify for relief under CAT, Petitioner must demonstrate “that it
is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed” to Mexico. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2). Petitioner has never been threatened or harmed, let alone tortured.
Nor has Petitioner provided any evidence that it is more likely than not he will be
subjected to torture upon returning to Mexico. Substantial evidence thus supports
the BIA’s CAT determination. See Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028.
PETITION DENIED.
3