Benito Cruz Camacho v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENITO CRUZ CAMACHO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73005
Agency No. A072-987-622
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order an
Immigration Judge’s Decision
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Benito Cruz Camacho, 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 and thus is not entitled to
relief from his reinstated removal order. 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). Cruz Camacho’s request for
oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
FILED
NOV 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73005
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Andrade-
Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Cruz Camacho failed
to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Mexico on account of
a protected ground. See Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1281 (9th Cir. 1998) (no
nexus to a protected ground where the evidence “at most shows that [petitioners]
had been the victim of criminal activity”); 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)).
Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Cruz Camacho failed
to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-
37.
We reject Cruz Camacho’s contentions that the IJ failed to provide a
reasoned explanation for his decision or otherwise erred in his analysis.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --