Ignacio Ramirez-Mendoza v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IGNACIO RAMIREZ-MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-73476
Agency No. A206-349-796
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 7, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: BRESS and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,*** Judge.
Ignacio Ramirez-Mendoza, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an
* 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 Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his applications for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We review the BIA’s
decision for substantial evidence. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1066 (9th Cir.
2021). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025,
1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal. To
establish eligibility for withholding of removal, Ramirez-Mendoza must establish
“that it is more likely than not” that he will be persecuted if returned to Mexico
“because of” membership in a particular social group or another protected ground.
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357, 360 (9th Cir. 2017); see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A). In this case, the BIA concluded that Ramirez-Mendoza did not
experience past persecution in Mexico when he suffered minor injuries and did not
require medical attention. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See
Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1061 (“We have repeatedly denied petitions for review when,
among other factors, the record did not demonstrate significant physical harm.”).
Moreover, Ramirez-Mendoza failed to show any claimed future persecution
1 Ramirez-Mendoza has not challenged the denial of asylum or cancellation of
removal, and these claims are therefore forfeited. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
would be because of his membership in a cognizable particular social group.
Ramirez-Mendoza did not establish that he belonged to his proposed group of
persons who “experienced prior mistreatment by the police in Mexico.” He also did
not establish that his proposed groups of persons “who appear[] to be Americanized”
or who “ha[ve] the perceived appearance of money [or] wealth” are distinct in
Mexican society, and thus cognizable for purposes of withholding of removal. See,
e.g., Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2019) (proposed group of
“individuals returning to Mexico [from] the United States [who] are believed to be
wealthy” is not cognizable); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir.
2016) (proposed group of “imputed wealthy Americans” is not a cognizable social
group).
2. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. An applicant
for CAT relief bears the burden of establishing that he “will more likely than not be
tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed to h[is]
native country.” Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).
Ramirez-Mendoza has not experienced past torture in Mexico, and his request for
relief referenced generalized reports of corruption and violence in the country. The
record does not compel the conclusion that, if Ramirez-Mendoza returns to Mexico,
he will likely be tortured by or with the acquiescence of government officials. See
Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[G]eneral

-- 3 of 4 --

4
ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not
suffice to show acquiescence.”).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --