Jose Antonio Ruiz-Morena v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANTONIO RUIZ-MORENA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73316
Agency No. A073-392-815
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an
Order of the Immigration Judge
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Antonio Ruiz-Morena, 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 he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico, and is
thus not entitled to relief from his 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
SEP 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-73316
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual
findings, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Ruiz-Morena failed
to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Mexico on account of a
protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even
if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still
show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such
group” (emphasis in original)); 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.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Ruiz-Morena
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.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-73316
We reject as without merit Ruiz-Morena’s argument that the IJ erred in the
analysis of his claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --