NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO VALDIVIA-ANGUIANO, No. 19-70186
Petitioner, Agency No. A060-658-698
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ZIPPS,*** District Judge.
Petitioner Ricardo Valdivia-Anguiano, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the
*
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 Jennifer G. Zipps, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum and withholding of removal, and
reversing the IJ’s grant of protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition
for review.
We review the BIA’s factual findings regarding Petitioner’s asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT protection claims for substantial evidence. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010); Kamalthas v. I.N.S., 251
F.3d. 1279, 1281 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court must affirm the BIA’s denial of these
petitions, unless “the evidence presented was such that a reasonable factfinder
would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.” See Zetino,
622 F.3d at 1012 (cleaned up).
Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner
failed to establish the necessary nexus between the harm he fears and a particular
social group, which is fatal to his applications for asylum and withholding of
removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017); Zetino,
622 F.3d at 1015–16 (reviewing nexus determination under highly deferential
substantial evidence standard). Petitioner’s expert testified that criminal
organizations would target Petitioner for monetary gain, not because of Petitioner’s
social group or any other protected ground. The expert described Americanized
Mexicans “first” as “a great potential resource . . . who ha[ve] money that could
2
give me an extra $5,000 fairly easily.” Petitioner similarly testified that he
believed Mexican cartels would target him for pecuniary reasons, not because he
was an Americanized Mexican. This evidence is insufficient to gain CAT relief.
See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016 (“An alien's desire to be free from harassment by
criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus
to a protected ground.”); see also. Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th
Cir. 2004) (holding that violent criminal acts do not equal persecution).
Additionally, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
denial of CAT protections. Petitioner failed to establish that it was more likely
than not that he would be subject to future torture because he would be
recognizable as an Americanized Mexican, would come to the attention of cartels,
and be tortured. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c); see also In re J-F-F, 23 I. & N. Dec.
912, 917–20 (B.I.A. 2006) (denying CAT protection because the petitioner failed
to prove that it was more likely than not he would face torture or that police would
participate or acquiesce in this torture). The Board noted the lack of evidence to
support the expert’s claim that Petitioner’s Spanish is likely to be Anglicized, and
it correctly determined that Petitioner could modify his appearance so that he does
not stand out upon returning to Mexico.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3