Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rogelio MENDOZA-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Rogelio Mendoza-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition as to the asylum and CAT claims, grant the petition as to the withholding of removal claim, and remand.
Even if his asylum application was timely, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Mendoza-Cruz failed to establish that his family membership was “at least one central reason” for his alleged persecution. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining “one central reason” standard). Thus, we deny his petition as to asylum.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Mendoza-Cruz failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by the government of Mexico, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture). Thus, we deny his petition as to CAT.
As to withholding of removal, the BIA did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 356-60 (9th Cir. 2017), when it issued its order. Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Mendoza-Cruz’s withholding of removal claim to the BIA to determine the impact of this decision. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam); see also Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 360 (“ ‘[A] reason’ is a less demanding standard than ‘one central reason.’ ”).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and REMANDED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 13-74064
Decided: February 21, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)