Yuridia Garcia Lorenzo v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YURIDIA GARCIA LORENZO,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71491
Agency No. A087-747-441
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration Judge
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Yuridia Garcia Lorenzo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that
she did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and thus is
not entitled to relief from her reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction
* 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
JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-71491
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination
for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir.
2016). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Garcia Lorenzo
failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Mexico on account of a
protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”);
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be
free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang
members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding future fear not objectively reasonable under
circumstances of the case).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Garcia
Lorenzo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-
Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37 (no government acquiescence demonstrated).
As stated in the court’s August 6, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --