Salvador Paz-Rodriguez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR PAZ-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72640
Agency No. A078-685-730
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration Judge
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Paz-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he
did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and thus is not
entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by
* 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
JUN 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72640
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for
substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016).
We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Paz-Rodriguez
failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Mexico on account of a
protected ground, including membership in a cognizable particular social group.
See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”); see also Ramirez-Munoz v.
Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy
Americans” returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group). We
lack jurisdiction to consider the political opinion and family-based social group
claims Paz-Rodriguez raises in the first instance in his opening brief. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to
review claims not presented to the agency).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Paz-Rodriguez
failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia, 828
F.3d at 836-37 (no reasonable possibility of torture with government
acquiescence).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72640
We reject as unsupported by the record Paz-Rodriguez’s contentions that the
IJ violated his right to due process or otherwise erred in the handling of his case.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motions for a stay of removal are otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --