MAYOLO SALINAS-JIMENEZ, AKA Mayolo Jimenez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAYOLO SALINAS-JIMENEZ, AKA
Mayolo Jimenez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73857
Agency No. A087-682-535
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: M. SMITH, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Mayolo Salinas-Jimenez, 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 asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny
* 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 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

Page 2 of 4
the petition for review as to the agency’s denial of asylum because substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Salinas-Jimenez’s asylum
application was untimely. We deny the petition for review as to the agency’s
denial of withholding because substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding
that the persecution Salinas-Jimenez fears would not be on account of a protected
ground. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Salinas-
Jimenez’s CAT claim.
1. Ordinarily, asylum seekers must file an asylum application within one
year of their arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Salinas-
Jimenez argues that changed and extraordinary circumstances excuse his admitted
failure to do so. See id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). However, substantial evidence supports
the agency’s determination that Salinas-Jimenez failed to file his asylum
application within a “reasonable period” of time in light of the changed and
extraordinary circumstances asserted. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5). The
events giving rise to Salinas-Jimenez’s fear of persecution took place in October
2009, but Salinas-Jimenez did not file his asylum application until May 2011, more
than a year and a half later. Salinas-Jimenez underwent kidney donation surgery in
July 2010, but did not file his asylum application until nearly eight months after the
end of his eight-week recovery. These facts do not compel the conclusion that
Salinas-Jimenez filed his application within a reasonable period of time. See

-- 2 of 4 --

Page 3 of 4
Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181–82 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that “the
term ‘reasonable period’ . . . suggests an amount of time that is to be determined on
the basis of all the factual circumstances of the case”).
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Salinas-Jimenez’s
withholding claim on the ground that he failed to establish a nexus between his
feared persecution and a protected ground. While both Salinas-Jimenez and his
cousin Mario Jimenez were living in the United States, Salinas-Jimenez provided
information to the police about a murder committed by Mario. Mario fled to
Mexico and was never apprehended. Salinas-Jimenez fears that, upon return to
Mexico, Mario would torture or kill him because of his disclosures to the police.
Salinas-Jimenez argues that this persecution would be on account of his
membership in a particular social group consisting of “individuals that provided
evidence to police about a murder.”
Even assuming that Salinas-Jimenez’s proposed social group is cognizable,
he also “must establish that [his] persecution [would] be on account of his
membership in such group.” Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011)
(per curiam). In Ayala, we held that even assuming that “former military officers
who suffer reprisals based on their prior prosecution of wrongdoers” is a
cognizable social group, the petitioner failed to establish the requisite nexus to a
protected ground because the persecution he suffered at the hands of drug dealers

-- 3 of 4 --

Page 4 of 4
whom he had arrested was motivated only by personal revenge. Id. at 1097–98.
Likewise, Salinas-Jimenez fails to establish the requisite nexus because the record
supports the agency’s finding that “there is no evidence that [Salinas-Jimenez’s]
cousin would be motivated to harm [Salinas-Jimenez] for any reason other than
revenge.” There is no evidence that “group-based intimidation” would be a reason
for the persecution Salinas-Jimenez fears, and “mistreatment motivated purely by
personal retribution will not give rise to a valid asylum [or withholding] claim.”
Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013).
3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Salinas-Jimenez’s
CAT claim. The evidence, including news articles regarding violence and
corruption in Mexico, does not compel the finding that Salinas-Jimenez would
more likely than not be tortured in Mexico with the acquiescence of a government
official.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --