Jose Pablo Godoy Acosta v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE PABLO GODOY ACOSTA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72088
Agency No. A205-714-671
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: RAWLINSON and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,***
District Judge.
FILED
NOV 29 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 5 --

Jose Pablo Godoy Acosta (Godoy Acosta), a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
We review the denials of withholding of removal and CAT relief for
substantial evidence. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir.
2017). Under substantial evidence review, findings of fact “are conclusive unless
any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id.
(citation omitted). When, as here, “the BIA agrees with the IJ decision and also
adds its own reasoning,” we review the BIA’s decision and “those parts of the IJ’s
decision upon which it relies.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027-28
(9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).
An applicant for withholding of removal must establish that his or her life or
freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal “because of . . .
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 356 (9th Cir. 2017) (footnote
reference omitted).
2

-- 2 of 5 --

Godoy Acosta testified that a gang member named Paco persecuted Godoy
Acosta and his nephew because Godoy Acosta refused to join Paco’s gang,
asserting that this persecution was because of Godoy Acosta’s membership in a
particular social group consisting of his family. The BIA determined that “[t]he
fact that Paco knows who [Godoy Acosta’s] family members are, specifically his
nephew, and threatened his nephew because of his relationship with [Godoy
Acosta] does not mean that the familial relationship is a reason for Godoy Acosta
being targeted.” Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the harm
experienced by Godoy Acosta was because of his refusal to join the gang and not
because of his family membership. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2010), as amended.
An applicant who fails to establish past persecution because of a protected
ground, may nevertheless qualify for withholding of removal by showing “a well-
founded fear of future persecution.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1065 (9th
Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). “To satisfy this standard, a petitioner must
demonstrate that his . . . fear is both subjectively genuine and objectively
reasonable. . . .” Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). An applicant who can safely relocate
within his native country “does not have a well-founded fear of [future]
3

-- 3 of 5 --

persecution.” Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029 (citation omitted). And when
“similarly-situated family members living in the petitioner’s home country are not
harmed,” fear of future persecution is reduced. Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1094
(citation, emphasis, and internal quotation marks omitted).
Godoy Acosta testified that he could relocate to a city where he could avoid
interacting with Paco. Also, Godoy Acosta’s nephews, sisters, cousin, and mother
remain in Guatemala unharmed. This substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that Godoy Acosta did not establish a clear probability of fear of
future persecution. See id.
To demonstrate eligibility for CAT relief, a petition must establish that “it is
more likely than not that he would be tortured in his country of removal.” See
Flores-Vegas v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). Torture is “any act by which severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind.” Id. (citation and alteration omitted). The
torture “must be inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
4

-- 4 of 5 --

The BIA determined that Godoy Acosta failed to demonstrate that he would
more likely than not be tortured in Guatemala. The BIA found that Godoy Acosta
was not previously tortured, that his family remains in Guatemala unharmed, and
that the country reports provided were general and did not identify a specific risk
of torture. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination. See Singh v.
Garland, 48 F.4th 1059, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 2022) (denying petition when petitioner
could have relocated and the country reports demonstrated generalized risks rather
than individualized risks).
PETITION DENIED.
5

-- 5 of 5 --