NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 10 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR IVAN GUERRERO ELIZONDO, No. 23-243
Agency No.
Petitioner, A205-053-756
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2024**
Portland, Oregon
Before: OWENS and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and RAYES, District
Judge.***
Cesar Ivan Guerrero Elizondo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order of removal, which
*
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 Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
affirmed without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Guerrero
Elizondo’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the parties are familiar with the
facts, we do not recount them here except as necessary for context. “Where, as
here, the BIA affirms the decision of the IJ without opinion, we review the IJ’s
decision as the final agency decision.” Donchev v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1206, 1212
(9th Cir. 2009). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and (a)(2)(D),
and we deny the petition.
1. Even assuming Guerrero Elizondo could overcome the IJ’s adverse
credibility finding, the untimeliness of his asylum application, and the lack of
nexus determination, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail because
the IJ determined that he could reasonably relocate to another part of Mexico, and
Guerrero Elizondo has not challenged that determination. See Akosung v. Barr,
970 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that asylum and withholding of
removal are unavailable if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating
within the country and it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to do so).
Even if he had challenged that determination, it is supported by substantial
evidence.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Guerrero Elizondo
did not establish for purposes of his CAT claim that it is more likely than not that
2 23-243
he would be subject to torture with the consent, acquiescence, or willful blindness
of the Mexican government if removed to Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,
600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“[G]eneralized evidence of
violence and crime in Mexico is . . . insufficient to meet [the CAT] standard.”); 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). Guerrero Elizondo points to no evidence in the record
compelling a contrary conclusion.
3. Guerrero Elizondo contends the IJ violated his procedural due process by
failing to provide meaningful reasoning and application of facts to the law,
diminishing his testimony, skewing the facts of the case, and mischaracterizing the
record. We disagree. See Getachew v. INS, 25 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir. 1994)
(holding that due process challenges in deportation proceedings require showing of
error and prejudice). Guerrero Elizondo received a meaningful opportunity to be
heard, and the IJ provided extensive reasoning in deciding the case. See Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that there was no due process
violation because proceedings were not so fundamentally unfair that petitioner was
prevented from reasonably presenting his case). Guerrero Elizondo also does not
make a clear showing of prejudice. Even if the IJ had given his testimony full
credence, substantial evidence supports that Guerrero Elizondo does not qualify for
asylum relief, mandatory withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT.
See Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 728 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that to prevail on
3 23-243
due process challenge, petitioner must show that violation of his rights likely
would have impacted the outcome of the removal proceeding).
PETITION DENIED.
4 23-243