Elfido Hernandez Lopez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELFIDO HERNANDEZ LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1842
Agency No.
A088-724-060
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Elfido Hernandez Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
* 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
DEC 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-1842
§ 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Hernandez Lopez
failed to prove it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of a government official if returned to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Nothing in the record “compels a contrary
conclusion.” Castillo v. Barr, 980 F.3d 1278, 1283 (9th Cir. 2020). Although
Hernandez Lopez stated that he received threatening phone calls between 2000 and
2004, he could not identify who the callers were, what they wanted, or why they
wanted to harm him. He could not identify anyone else who might harm him, and
he testified that neither he nor any of his family members in Mexico had ever
suffered torture in the country.
Moreover, the “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico”
Hernandez Lopez points to “is not particular to [him] and is insufficient” to obtain
CAT protection. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010);
see also Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating that a
petitioner must show “a particularized threat of torture” (quoting Dhital v.
Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008))). And his argument that he will be
targeted because of his status as a deportee from the United States was
unexhausted, so we decline to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --