Gilberto MAYORGA CERDA, aka Gilberto Mayor-Cerda, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: July 23, 2020
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Claire Kim, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Claire H. Kim & Associates, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner Aric Allan Anderson, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Gilberto Mayorga Cerda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that Mayorga Cerda failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Mexico on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting political opinion claim where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition to the gang's ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the petitioner); see also 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”).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ's determination that Mayorga Cerda failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
We do not consider evidence that was not part of the record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The record does not support Mayorga Cerda's contention that the IJ failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in the analysis of his claim.
In light of this disposition, Mayorga Cerda's motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.