NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGARDO ENRIQUE ESCOBAR No. 20-70084
PACHECO,
Agency No. A206-353-148
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 8, 2021**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: NGUYEN, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Edgardo Escobar Pacheco petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s
*
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).
“legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Arrey
v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). As the parties are
familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition.
1. An applicant for asylum must establish that “membership in a particular
social group . . . was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the
applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). To satisfy this nexus requirement,
Pacheco “must provide direct or circumstantial evidence of his persecutors’
motives.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Pacheco failed to
demonstrate that he was or will be targeted due to his status as a soccer player.
There is no evidence that Pacheco was attacked and robbed because he played
soccer. In fact, a gang member told Pacheco “I don’t know who you are. I don’t
even know you” during the attack. As for future persecution, Pacheco is no longer
a professional soccer player and there is no evidence that he would be recognized
and targeted on that basis (or for being a current mixed martial arts fighter) in
Honduras. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Pacheco’s
asylum claim. See Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016)
(“The lack of a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of [petitioner’s]
2
asylum . . . claim[].”).1
2. As with a claim for asylum, to be eligible for withholding of removal, an
applicant must establish that he has been or likely will be persecuted “on account
of” a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). To satisfy this nexus
requirement, an applicant must show that a protected ground is or would be “a
reason” for past or future persecution, a weaker standard than the “one central
reason” standard from the asylum context. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d
351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). For the reasons identified above, Pacheco did not
establish a nexus between past or future persecution and a protected ground, even
under the less stringent “a reason” standard.
3. To qualify for CAT relief, the applicant must show: (1) “it is more likely
than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
removal,” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); and (2) the torture will be “inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official . . . or other
person acting in an official capacity,” id. § 208.18(a)(1). See Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014). Pacheco cited only “generalized
evidence of violence and crime” that failed to show it is more likely than not he
1
Because the BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum on the
merits, it did not address the IJ’s determination that Pacheco is time-barred from
applying for asylum. We thus cannot reach this alternative ground. See Arrey, 916
F.3d at 1157 (“We cannot affirm the BIA on a ground upon which it did not rely.”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
3
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Honduras. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.
2010). Therefore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT
protection.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4
Edgardo Escobar Pacheco v. Merrick Garland
Combined Opinion