LOPEZ GOMEZ v. BARR (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Lopez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico, and is thus not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We review de novo due process challenges to reasonable fear proceedings. Zuniga v. Barr, 946 F.3d 464, 466 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials submitted by Lopez-Gomez that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record underlying the agency’s decision).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Lopez-Gomez failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Mexico on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’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”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear of future persecution speculative); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (harm based on personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Lopez-Gomez failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”).

Lopez-Gomez’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process fail. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2018) (concluding that petitioner’s due process allegations in reasonable fear proceedings lacked merit).

Lopez-Gomez’s request to stay his removal, set forth in the opening brief, is denied as unnecessary because, pursuant to this court’s January 29, 2020 order, Lopez-Gomez has a stay of removal in effect.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.