Valerio Salazar-Beltran v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALERIO SALAZAR-BELTRAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71577
Agency No. A072-321-043
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District
Judge.
Valerio Salazar-Beltran petitions for review of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order
* 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).
*** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 8 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Reviewing the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and any legal
questions de novo, see Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir.
2022), we deny the petition for review.
1. Salazar does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that his asylum
application was untimely. Therefore, he has forfeited any claim of error. See
Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 703 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010).
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Salazar is
ineligible for withholding of removal because he did not show a nexus between his
feared persecution and his family members’ police service. See INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (holding that withholding applicant “must
provide some evidence of [his persecutors’ motives], direct or circumstantial”).
Salazar’s mother stated that the “entire family . . . has received death threats
by criminal gangs” because Salazar’s father “placed a lot of criminals in prison”
and that his father was shot “[i]n consequence to these actions and threats.”
However, Salazar’s mother does not provide any details regarding his father’s
police activities, the threats, or the shooting incident that would explain why she
believes his father’s police service was a causal factor in the shooting. The record
contains no evidence connecting Salazar’s father’s kidnapping with his father’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
police service. The other incidents of violence that Salazar identifies merely
illustrate his fear of violence and kidnappings due to the dangerous conditions in
Mexico. They bear “no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Salazar is
ineligible for CAT protection. The agency properly found that Salazar failed to
show he “would be recognized by his family’s . . . assailants after having departed
Mexico over 30 years [earlier].” Salazar stated that the families of criminals his
father arrested would recognize him because he “used to follow [his] father a lot
when he worked,” but Salazar left Mexico at age 13, and there is no evidence of
recent threats against him or his family.
The agency also properly found that Salazar “could . . . reasonably relocate
[within Mexico] if necessary to avoid harm.” See Dawson v. Garland, 998 F.3d
876, 885 (9th Cir. 2021). Salazar’s father relocated to a nearby municipality upon
retirement and “managed to stay safe” there for at least 18 years.
As for Salazar’s “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico,”
the agency properly found that it “is not particular to [him] and is insufficient to
meet [the] standard” for CAT protection. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,
1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --