NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
JUN 28 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS LOPEZ-PALOMARES, No. 21-236
Agency No.
Petitioner, A205-712-421
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 7, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH, HAMILTON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.***
Petitioner Luis Lopez-Palomares, a citizen of Mexico, challenges the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
*
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 David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for
the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them
here except as necessary to provide context. We review legal questions de novo
and factual determinations for substantial evidence. Tomczyk v. Garland, 25
F.4th 638, 643 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (citing Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1202,
1206 (9th Cir. 2011)). Because the BIA affirmed the decision of the IJ and
incorporated portions of the IJ’s decision, “we treat the incorporated parts of the
IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Maie v. Garland, 7 F.4th 841, 845 (9th Cir. 2021).
1. Assuming Petitioner did not waive his challenge to the BIA’s finding
that he failed to establish a causal nexus between a protected ground and the
persecution he fears, substantial evidence supports that finding. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (requiring asylum applicants to show that a protected ground
is “at least one central reason” for persecution); id. § 1231(b)(3)(C) (requiring
withholding applicants to show that a protected ground is “a reason” for
persecution). Petitioner fears persecution on account of membership in the
particular social group of his family. He testified that one of his brothers was
severely beaten and another brother was kidnapped by unknown perpetrators in
their hometown of Leon, and he believes that the perpetrators of those attacks
will harm him if he returns to Mexico. However, the record does not compel
the conclusion that Petitioner would be targeted based on his association with
his brothers.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that
2 21-236
Petitioner has not established that he is more likely than not to be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the Mexican government if removed. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.16(c)(1)–(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Petitioner argues that his testimony and
country reports show widespread organized crime and corruption in the
Mexican government. But “generalized evidence of violence and crime in
Mexico is not particular to Petitioner[] and is insufficient to meet th[e]
standard” for CAT relief. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152
(9th Cir. 2010); see also Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir.
2008) (requiring applicants for CAT relief to show a “particularized threat of
torture” (emphasis omitted) (quoting Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 936
(9th Cir. 2004))).
PETITION DENIED.
3 21-236