Miguel Pacheco-Ascencio v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL PACHECO-ASCENCIO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70814
Agency No. A097-764-958
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted August 30, 2017
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,** District
Judge.
Miguel Pacheco-Ascencio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge's decision denying his application for withholding of removal
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-70814
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Reviewing the
agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), we deny the petition for review.
As to withholding of removal based on past persecution, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that a fundamental change in
circumstance rebutted the presumption of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.16(b)(1); see also Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2014). More than
two decades have passed since Pacheco has seen his father, and there was no
evidence that his father would recognize him. Substantial evidence also supports
the agency’s conclusion that Pacheco did not independently establish a clear
probability of future persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th
Cir. 2003). In light of these dispositive findings, we reject Pacheco’s argument
that the agency violated due process by failing to consider a nexus between future
harm and the social groups he proposed. See Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (noting that a petitioner must show both error and substantial
prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
As to Pacheco’s claim based on his membership in the Tarasco indigenous
group, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that it is not more
likely than not that Pacheco will be persecuted on this basis. Substantial evidence
also supports the conclusion that Pacheco failed to show a pattern or practice of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-70814
persecution against the Tarasco in Mexico. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1061.
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of withholding of
removal.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because
Pacheco failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured with
the participation or acquiescence of a government official or person acting in an
official capacity if he returns to Mexico. See id. at 1067-68.
Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --