MARTIN GONZALEZ-MARTINEZ, AKA Martin Gonzalez, AKA Martin G. Martinez, AKA Martin… v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN GONZALEZ-MARTINEZ, AKA
Martin Gonzalez, AKA Martin G. Martinez,
AKA Martin Martinez Gonzalez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72046
Agency No. A206-408-954
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Martin Gonzalez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
* 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
FEB 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-72046
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gonzalez-
Martinez failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or
would be on account of an imputed political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive],
direct or circumstantial”).
Gonzalez-Martinez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he
did not establish past persecution on account of his race. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Gonzalez-Martinez failed to show a pattern or practice
of persecution against indigenous Zapotecs in Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (record evidence of widespread
discrimination against particular groups did not compel the conclusion that there
was a pattern or practice of persecution). Thus, Gonzalez-Martinez’s withholding
of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-72046
Gonzalez-Martinez failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --