Pedro Garcia-Salinas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO GARCIA-SALINAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72218
Agency No. A200-156-721
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 9, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Garcia-Salinas seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claim. As the facts are known to the parties,
we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision. 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
FEB 11 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
“To be eligible for relief under CAT, an applicant 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 [his] native country.” Xochihua-
Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). We review the factual findings
underlying the BIA’s determination for substantial evidence. Avendano-Hernandez
v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015). “In order for this court to reverse the
BIA with respect to a finding of fact, the evidence must compel a different
conclusion from the one reached by the BIA.” Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835
(9th Cir. 2011).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Garcia-Salinas is
not eligible for CAT protection.
1. Garcia-Salinas did not present evidence of a likely ongoing threat from
his father. Garcia-Salinas’ father has not physically threatened any family member
since being imprisoned in 2009. Garcia-Salinas has not been in contact with his
father for “a long time” and conceded he could try living in a different area of
Mexico away from his father. See Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th
Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “the possibility of relocation within the country
of removal” is a factor to consider). Garcia-Salinas provided no evidence for his
claim that government officials released his father from prison early after accepting

-- 2 of 3 --

3
bribes. Instead, the record reflects that the government arrested and imprisoned his
father, and that it issued a restraining order protecting his mother.
2. Garcia-Salinas failed to offer evidence corroborating his claim that his
brother Juan Carlos was kidnapped and ransomed. Despite Juan Carlos now living
near San Diego, Garcia-Salinas did not obtain a declaration from him substantiating
the incident. Even assuming that Juan Carlos was kidnapped, Garcia-Salinas did not
present evidence detailing why he himself would be a target of torture by these
kidnappers. To the extent that Garcia-Salinas is claiming a fear of general unsafe
conditions in Mexico, such a fear is insufficient for CAT purposes. See Delgado-
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
3. As to his brother Ramiro’s beating at the hands of gang members and
police, Garcia-Salinas presented no evidence showing why Garcia-Salinas was
connected to the incident or why those involved would seek to target him for torture.
Garcia-Salinas’ claims about this incident and the police involvement in it are highly
speculative without more documentation or declarations supporting them.
In sum, “the claims of possible torture remain speculative.” Zheng, 644 F.3d
at 835. The evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s. See
Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890–91 (9th Cir. 2021).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --