Edwin Adolfo Flores Ramirez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN ADOLFO FLORES RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70710
Agency No. A099-515-445
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 7, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: IKUTA, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Edwin Adolfo Flores Ramirez, a citizen of Honduras, seeks review
of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) negative reasonable fear determination. “An IJ’s
negative determination regarding the alien’s reasonable fear makes the reinstatement
order final.” Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). Therefore,
* 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).
FILED
MAR 10 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
We review factual findings under the “substantial evidence” standard. Iman
v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). Under this standard, the IJ’s factual
findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Flores Ramirez did
not establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a protected
ground. Flores Ramirez told the interviewing asylum officer that he had not been
harmed and was not afraid of being harmed based on his race, religion, nationality,
ethnicity, or political opinion. Although Flores Ramirez stated that he believed
members of a gang in Honduras threatened him because he had made repeated
requests for the mayor to build a bridge in his community, Flores Ramirez admitted
that he had no evidence beyond his own hypothesis to establish a connection
between his requests and the gang’s actions. He also failed to provide any evidence
or argument that he was a member of a particular social group based on his requests
to the mayor, or that advocating for a bridge otherwise implicated a protected
ground.
Instead, Flores Ramirez stated that he feared harm because the gang extorts
and threatens people who have money. A fear of “theft or random violence by gang
members bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,

-- 2 of 4 --

3
1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, Flores Ramirez testified that when the gang did
threaten his life, the police from a nearby neighborhood came to his assistance. This
fact supports the IJ’s conclusion that Flores Ramirez failed to establish that
relocation within Honduras was unreasonable. See 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(b)(3)(i)
(providing that an applicant seeking withholding of removal bears the burden of
establishing that internal relocation would not be reasonable). Therefore, the IJ did
not err when it found Flores Ramierz did not establish reasonable fear of persecution.
Because Flores Ramirez does not “specifically and distinctly” argue that the
IJ erred when it found that Flores Ramirez failed to establish a reasonable possibility
of torture, United States v. Briones, 18 F.4th 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation
omitted), we find that Flores Ramirez waived his CAT claim on appeal.
Finally, we reject Flores Ramirez’s argument that the vacatur of Matter of A-
B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), necessitates remand here. The Attorney
General’s 2021 decision vacating Matter of A-B- explicitly stated that IJs should
follow pre-A-B- precedent when considering whether “a person [seeking asylum]
should be considered a member of a particular social group.” Matter of A-B-, 28 I.
& N. Dec. 307, 308–09 (A.G. 2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Relevant
pre-Matter of A-B- precedent requires Flores Ramirez to show a reasonable
possibility of persecution based on a protected ground and that internal relocation
was not reasonable. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016; 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(b)(3)(i). Because

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Flores Ramirez established neither of these, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
negative reasonable fear determination independent of any change in law caused by
the vacatur of Matter of A-B-.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --