Jose Guadalupe Jasso Acosta v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUADALUPE JASSO ACOSTA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-533
Agency No. A077-971-888
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Guadalupe Jasso Acosta petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from the denial by an
immigration judge (IJ) of his applications for withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
* 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
MAR 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-533
1. The IJ and BIA relied on the appropriate factors and proper
evidence in determining that Jasso is ineligible for withholding of removal
because he was convicted of a particularly serious crime. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 961 (9th Cir. 2020). Jasso
argues that the agency erred in failing to consider his mental condition at the
time of the crime. See Gomez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 985, 996 (9th Cir.
2018). But Jasso did not provide the IJ with any evidence about his mental state
or health, and, because Jasso was represented by counsel, the IJ had no
independent duty to develop the record. See Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th
1213, 1226 (9th Cir. 2021); see also Benedicto v. Garland, 12 F.4th 1049, 1062
(9th Cir. 2021) (“Gomez-Sanchez did not impose a new standard that the IJ must
always reference a petitioner’s mental health in a ‘particularly serious crime’
determination.”). The BIA thus did not abuse its discretion in adopting the IJ’s
analysis. See Bare, 975 F.3d at 961; see generally Matter of Burbano, 20 I. &
N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994) (articulating standard of review).
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Jasso’s CAT
claim. As Jasso concedes, there is no evidence of past torture in the record. Nor
did Jasso’s testimony about two encounters with cartel members establish a
likelihood of future torture with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.
See Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir. 2019). As to the articles
Jasso provided, evidence of generalized violence and crime that is not particular
to the petitioner is insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See, e.g.,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-533
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED.1
1 Accordingly, we also deny the motion to stay removal (Dkt. No. 8) as moot.

-- 3 of 3 --