Alejandro Motin-Lopez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO MOTIN-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73158
Agency No. A095-751-704
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 17, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, GOULD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Motin-Lopez, a citizen and native of Honduras, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the
order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“Torture
Convention”).1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 242(a)(1) of the Immigration
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
1 Motin-Lopez forfeited any challenge to the agency’s denial of his asylum claim
FILED
MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we review the agency’s legal
conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-
Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Under the
substantial evidence standard, the “administrative findings of fact are conclusive
unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Motin-
Lopez failed to establish “a ‘clear probability’ of future persecution” on account of
his “race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular
social group.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation
omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Although Motin-Lopez was robbed
by gang members on multiple occasions,2 he failed to show that “gang members
were or would be motivated to harm [him] on account of his membership in a
family that owned a small business.” On this record, the agency permissibly
concluded that any harm he had experienced or might face arises from general
criminal activity by gangs and not on account of a protected ground. Motin-
by failing to address that ruling in his opening brief. See Velasquez-Gaspar v.
Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020).
2 Motin-Lopez also argues that the agency failed to consider that on three
occasions he was temporarily detained by military officials. However, Motin-
Lopez did not raise this argument on appeal to the BIA, and we therefore lack
jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted issue. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Lopez’s claim for withholding of removal was therefore properly rejected.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Motin-
Lopez failed to show that “it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if
removed” to Honduras. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see also Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014). Although Motin-Lopez contends
that the agency failed adequately to consider country conditions evidence, the IJ’s
ruling was based on the entire record, which (at the IJ’s request) included the
country conditions reports, and the BIA specifically referenced those reports in its
decision. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, those
reports contain evidence that, although significant corruption exists in Honduras,
“[t]he government took steps to prosecute and punish officials who committed
abuses.” Viewing the record as a whole, we cannot say that a reasonable factfinder
would be compelled to conclude that it is more likely than not “a Honduran official
would acquiesce in any torture” that might be “inflicted . . . by gang members.”3
The petition for review is DENIED.
3 Motin-Lopez contends that the agency violated his due process rights, but he
presents no argument in support of that claim beyond the other points that we have
already rejected. He has therefore failed to show any due process violation.

-- 3 of 3 --