Jesus Humberto Acosta-Ruiz v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS HUMBERTO ACOSTA-RUIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70125
Agency No. A095-131-052
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted March 10, 2022
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: PAEZ, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Acosta-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons below, we deny the
petition.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
MAY 6 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
1. Acosta-Ruiz’s argument that he merits withholding of removal
because he was subject to past persecution on account of his membership in the
particular social group of “honest police officers” is not meritorious. “[I]t is an
applicant’s burden to specifically delineate her proposed social group” before the
IJ. Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1084 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing
Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018)); Honcharov v.
Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (arguments raised for the first time on
appeal “do not have to be entertained”). Acosta-Ruiz’s counsel’s passing
description of Acosta-Ruiz as an “honest police officer” in oral argument before
the IJ does not satisfy this standard. Thus, we agree with the BIA that this issue
was waived and therefore is not properly before this court. We deny the petition
for review as to this point.
2. Acosta-Ruiz’s argument that he merits withholding of removal
because he faces a threat of future persecution on account of his membership in the
particular social group of “former police officers” is not meritorious. To prevail on
this claim, Acosta-Ruiz was required to demonstrate that he had suffered or would
suffer persecution after leaving his employment as a police officer. Sanjaa v.
Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2017). The IJ held that although Acosta-
Ruiz is a member of a particular social group of “former police officers,” he is not
more likely than not to face persecution on account of this status because he

-- 2 of 3 --

3
received threats only while he was an active police officer. The BIA affirmed.
Although country conditions reports in the record indicate that former police
officers may be targeted by cartels, Acosta-Ruiz offers no record citations showing
that he, specifically, is more likely than not to be targeted. We therefore affirm
the agency’s denial of this claim and deny the petition for review as to this point.
3. Acosta-Ruiz’s argument that he merits CAT protection because he is
more likely than not to be killed by drug traffickers if returned to Mexico is not
meritorious. The IJ denied Acosta-Ruiz’s CAT claim because he had not
demonstrated that the threats he received two decades ago made it more likely than
not he will be tortured if he returns to Mexico. The BIA affirmed. Nothing in the
record compels the conclusion that the cartels that once threatened Acosta-Ruiz are
more likely than not to carry out those threats now, nor that the government would
acquiesce in their doing so. We therefore affirm the agency’s denial of this claim
and deny the petition for review as to this point.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --