ABRAHAM VALDOVINOS V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-73612 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ABRAHAM AGUILAR VALDOVINOS, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-73612 Agency No. A095-795-558 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 6, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Abraham Aguilar Valdovinos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) negative reasonable fear determination. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. To prevail in a reasonable fear review hearing, a non-citizen must * 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). “establish[ ] a reasonable possibility” of persecution or torture, 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(c), “which has been defined to require a ten percent chance that the noncitizen will be persecuted or tortured if returned to his or her home country.” Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, 993 F.3d 1187, 1195 (9th Cir. 2021). “We review the IJ’s determination that the alien did not establish a reasonable fear of persecution or torture for substantial evidence.” Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2018). “We review de novo due process challenges to reasonable fear proceedings.” Zuniga v. Barr, 946 F.3d 464, 466 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Valdovinos did not have a reasonable fear of persecution. A reasonable factfinder could find that Valdovinos did not have even a ten percent chance of demonstrating that the violence he feared was connected to a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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.”); cf. Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2019) (concluding that individuals returning to Mexico who are believed to be wealthy is not a cognizable particular social group). Additionally, a reasonable factfinder could find that Valdovinos could avoid future persecution by relocating within Mexico, away from the region where the local gang operated. See 8 C.F.R. 2 § 1208.16(b)(2)-(3). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Valdovinos did not have a reasonable fear of torture. The record does not show that Valdovinos would face “a particularized threat of torture” at the hands of government officials. Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Nor does the record demonstrate that the Mexican government would acquiesce to Valdovinos’ torture by local gang members, as the government has previously attempted to control the gang. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[G]eneral ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”). And again, a reasonable factfinder could find that Valdovinos could avoid future torture at the hands of the local gang by relocating within Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii). Finally, the IJ did not deprive Valdovinos of a fair reasonable fear hearing or violate his due process rights. No evidence supports Valdovinos’ contention that the IJ required absolute certainty of persecution or torture. Instead, the record supports the conclusion that the IJ applied the correct standard. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.1 1 Valdovinos’ motions for a stay of removal, Dkt. Nos. 1, 6, are denied as moot. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.