Eliezer Rodriguez Jimenez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIEZER RODRIGUEZ JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1098
Agency No.
A206-150-408
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 12, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Eliezer Rodriguez Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal
of an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his applications for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review
the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief for substantial evidence.
* 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
MAY 16 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 22-1098
Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021). “Under this
standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels
a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.
2019). “Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872,
874 (BIA 1994) and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we
review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479,
481 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation and alterations omitted). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal.
A petitioner is eligible for withholding of removal if his “life or freedom would
be threatened in [the country of removal] because of [his] race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). To meet his burden, the petitioner must “demonstrate a
nexus between the harm he allegedly faces upon return to [Mexico] and a
protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). For
withholding of removal, the petitioner establishes nexus by showing that a
protected ground was “a reason” for the past or feared harm. Barajas-Romero v.
Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017).
Fears of generalized violence are not a sufficient basis for asylum or
withholding of removal. See, e.g., Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 649 (9th Cir.
2021) (noting that “generalized crime and violence” in a country “cannot be a
basis for granting asylum to any citizen of that country in the United States”);

-- 2 of 4 --

3 22-1098
Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that random
criminal acts bear no nexus to a protected ground). The BIA therefore properly
found that Rodriguez Jimenez’s stated fears of general “delinquency” in Mexico
are insufficient to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. Moreover,
Rodriguez Jimenez did not provide evidence that he or anyone in his family had
been threatened on account of their membership in the particular social group
consisting of “[a]dult male member[s] of the Rodriguez Jimenez family.”
Substantial evidence thus supports the conclusion that Rodriguez Jimenez’s
family membership is not “a reason” that he would face future persecution.
Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 360.
2. Rodriguez Jimenez failed to make any argument or cite any authority
regarding CAT protection in his appellate brief before the BIA. In his petition
for review, Rodriguez Jimenez fails to raise any meaningful challenge to the
BIA’s determination that he waived his CAT claim by failing to preserve it before
the BIA. Martinez-Serrano v. INS., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n
issue referred to in the appellant’s statement of the case but not discussed in the
body of the opening brief is deemed waived.”). The BIA thus properly dismissed
Rodriguez Jimenez’s CAT claim as waived.
3. Rodriguez Jimenez argues that the agency lacked jurisdiction over
his removal proceedings because his notice to appear did not specify the address
of the immigration court where the removal proceedings would be held. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.15(b)(6). This argument is foreclosed by precedent. See United

-- 3 of 4 --

4 22-1098
States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc);
Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020); Karingithi v.
Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2019).
4. Rodriguez Jimenez also argues that his due process rights were
violated because the IJ failed to advise him of his eligibility for pre-conclusion
voluntary departure. But Rodriguez Jimenez cannot “show error and substantial
prejudice.” Grigoryan v. Barr, 959 F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)). Rodriguez Jimenez, through
counsel, waived his “formal reading and explanation and formal advisal of rights”
at his hearing before the IJ on February 2, 2016, prior to his final hearing on the
merits. Rodriguez Jimenez does not argue that this waiver was involuntary.
Therefore, the IJ did not err in not informing him of the option of pre-conclusion
voluntary departure.
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

-- 4 of 4 --