Rogelio Mendoza-Cruz v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGELIO MENDOZA-CRUZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74064
Agency No. A087-595-662
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rogelio Mendoza-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-74064
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010).
We deny the petition as to the asylum and CAT claims, grant the petition as to the
withholding of removal claim, and remand.
Even if his asylum application was timely, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that Mendoza-Cruz failed to establish that his family membership
was “at least one central reason” for his alleged persecution. See Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining “one central reason”
standard). Thus, we deny his petition as to asylum.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Mendoza-Cruz failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by
the government of Mexico, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture). Thus, we deny his petition as to
CAT.
As to withholding of removal, the BIA did not have the benefit of this
court’s decision in Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 356-60 (9th Cir.
2017), when it issued its order. Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-74064
Mendoza-Cruz’s withholding of removal claim to the BIA to determine the impact
of this decision. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); see
also Barajas-Romero, 846 F.3d at 360 (“‘[A] reason’ is a less demanding standard
than ‘one central reason.’”).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --