Alejandro Antonio Cataneda-Zavala v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1437
___________________________
Alejandro Antonio Cataneda-Zavala
Petitioner
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States
Respondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
DHS Homeland Security
____________
Submitted: February 10, 2025
Filed: March 14, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 6 --

-2-
Alejandro Antonio Castaneda-Zavala1 petitions for review of the dismissal of
his motion to reconsider by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Having jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.
Castaneda-Zavala, a native and citizen of Mexico, came to the United States
without documentation when he was two- or three-years-old. In 2022, police
arrested him for discharging a firearm, possessing marijuana, and possessing drug
paraphernalia. He pled guilty to possession of a firearm by an alien illegally and
unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5), 924(a)(8),
and 924(a)(2). He was sentenced to time served and transferred to custody of the
Department of Homeland Security. DHS issued a Notice of Intent to issue a Final
Administrative Removal Order (FARO). He did not contest his removability. He
requested withholding or deferral of removal. DHS issued the FARO, scheduling
him for a reasonable fear interview with an asylum officer in January 2024.
At the interview, the asylum officer asked him who he feared in Mexico. He
responded:
Cartels and gangs in Mexico. I don’t have family in Mexico. They are
kidnapping people at the border. If they have been recently deported
they ask your family for ransom. They might ask you to work for them.
If you don’t want to, they might harm you. One of my uncle[s] was
asked to sell drugs. He said no and they kidnapped him. They let him
go, but they asked him to sell drugs for him again and he said no. Since
that we had not heard from them.
He said there was no other group he feared, he had never been physically harmed in
Mexico, and he had never been threatened. Asked what he feared would happen if
deported, he said:
1 The spelling of Petitioner’s name appears on the docket for this matter and
in various parts of the administrative record as “Cataneda-Zavala.” The correct
spelling of Petitioner’s name appears to be “Castaneda-Zavala.”

-- 2 of 6 --

-3-
Kidnaping, torture and death. Forced labor. I would be homeless.
. . . .
They want people who are bilingual and have been to the U.S. They
want to use you to benefit their own business so you can help them
conduct business. Anyone can be a candidate. No particular reason.
His beliefs were based mainly on what he sees “in the news.” The asylum officer
found him credible, but determined he did not demonstrate either a reasonable fear
of persecution or torture. He requested review of the decision. The case was
referred to an Immigration Judge.
Castaneda-Zavala appeared with counsel before an IJ at a reasonable fear
review hearing in February 2024. He repeated what he had told the asylum officer.
He also told the IJ he fears the Mexican police and the military because he thinks
they may kidnap him or demand money from his family. He elaborated on his uncle,
claiming that when his uncle refused the gang members’ demands, he disappeared
and has not been seen again. Castaneda-Zavala claimed he had no place to live in
Mexico, would “probably turn to stealing,” be incarcerated, and then tortured in jail.
At the end of the hearing, the IJ issued an order agreeing with the asylum
officer’s finding that Castaneda-Zavala did not establish a reasonable possibility he
would be persecuted or tortured in Mexico. It wrote:
The immigration court concurs in the DHS Reasonable Fear
Determination because: No past harm; fear of future harm is purely
speculative and rooted in fear of gang/organized crime, such as
recruitment, forced labor and consequences of refusing those efforts,
none of which bear a nexus to an enumerated ground in the INA; other
fear relates to extortion or kidnapping for ransom at government-
operated checkpoints with the intent to acquire money from
Respondent’s family in the United States; evidence filed by attorney
does not demonstrate that his type of conduct occurs[.]

-- 3 of 6 --

-4-
I.
Castaneda-Zavala believes the IJ erred in failing to consider his claim under
both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). This court reviews de novo. Ntangsi v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 1007, 1011 (8th
Cir. 2007).
The IJ addressed Castaneda-Zavala’s claim under the INA at the hearing. It
said:
First of all, you have not experienced any past harm since you came to
the United States at a very young age. Also, your fear of being harmed
for refusing to be involved with gangs—while that’s respectable and
honorable—that is not harm that relates to your race, religion,
nationality, political opinion, or membership in a unique group of
people.
And it explicitly referenced the INA in its order. The IJ did not explicitly reference
the CAT in its written order or at the hearing. But it did address whether he would
be tortured. It said:
Further, in terms of the reasonable possibility of whether or not you will
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official:
general corruption and anecdotes or stories of law enforcement being
corrupt and being involved in gangs would not be even close to
sufficient. And the situation that you talk about of being afraid of some
sort of government—such as police or military—background check,
learning that you’ve been deported, and using that as a way to extort
money from your family or kidnap you for ransom is quite speculative.
And the evidence your attorney provided does not show that there is—
that that happens with any degree of regularity for people who have
been deported from the United States.
The IJ’s written findings need not “clearly distinguish between [petitioner’s]
claims for withholding of removal and claims for protection under the Convention

-- 4 of 6 --

-5-
Against Torture (CAT).” Lara-Nieto v. Barr, 945 F.3d 1054, 1058 (8th Cir. 2019).
Where no facts in the record support a claim under CAT, this court can affirm even
if the IJ did not “clearly discuss the basis for his claim for protection under CAT.”
Id. at 1061-62. Here, while the IJ did not explicitly mention CAT in its order, it
considered the likelihood he would be tortured. There was no error.
II.
Castaneda-Zavala asserts the IJ erred in determining he did not establish a
reasonable probability of being tortured in Mexico. This court reviews for
substantial evidence. Id. at 1060. Reversal is warranted only if “no reasonable fact-
finder could fail to find in favor of the petitioner.” Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d
602, 605 (8th Cir. 2007). To obtain relief under CAT, the noncitizen must establish
“that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the
proposed country of removal.” Lara-Nieto, 945 F.3d at 1061.
“[T]he existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations
of human rights in a particular country does not, as such, constitute a sufficient
ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being
subjected to torture upon his return to that country.” Lasu v. Barr, 970 F.3d 960,
966 (8th Cir. 2020). Rather, “specific grounds must exist that indicate the individual
would be personally at risk.” Id. (cleaned up). For CAT claims based on a
hypothetical chain of events, “each link in the chain must be more likely than not to
occur.” Rosas-Martinez v. Garland, 100 F.4th 971, 976 (8th Cir. 2024).
Here, the IJ did not err in determining that Castaneda-Zavala’s fears are
“purely speculative” and inadequate to establish with more likelihood than not that
he would be tortured. His CAT claim is based entirely on general country conditions
that apply equally to every person deported from the United States to Mexico. He
submits no evidence that he would be “personally at risk” of torture. Lasu, 970 F.3d
at 966. The IJ did not err in its determination. See Rosas-Martinez, 100 F.4th at 976

-- 5 of 6 --

-6-
(agreeing with the agency that a Mexican applicant for CAT protection did not show
he would be “personally at risk” of human rights violations in Mexico).
* * * * * * *
The petition for review is denied.
______________________________

-- 6 of 6 --