Jose Barreto-Alonso v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE BARRETO-ALONSO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-469
Agency No.
A205-297-854
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 18, 2023**
Portland, Oregon
Before: RAWLINSON, BEA, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Jose Barreto-Alonso (Barreto-Alonso), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal of the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of withholding
of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1
* 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).
1 In his opening brief, Barreto-Alonso does not contest the agency’s denial of
FILED
APR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-469
We review the agency’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief
for substantial evidence. See Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th
Cir. 2022). The agency’s findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
“Absent evidence of past persecution,” Barreto-Alonso “must establish a
well-founded fear of future persecution by showing both a subjective fear of
future persecution, as well as an objectively reasonable possibility of
persecution upon return to [Mexico].” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d
1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“However, an applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the
applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the
applicant’s country of nationality and under all the circumstances it would be
reasonable to expect the applicant to do so.” Id. (citation, alterations, and
internal quotation marks omitted). Barreto-Alonso “had the burden of proving
that such relocation would not be possible or reasonable.” Id. (citations and
footnote reference omitted). Thus, the issue of internal relocation “is
dispositive.” Id. at n.2.
Barreto-Alonso does not meaningfully challenge the BIA’s ruling that he
asylum based on the untimely filing of his asylum application. Barreto-Alonso,
therefore, has waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of asylum. See
Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-469
failed to contest the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal “based on a failure to
demonstrate that he suffered from past persecution or that he could not
reasonably relocate within Mexico.” As a result, Barreto-Alonso has waived
any challenge to these dispositive findings supporting the agency’s denial of
withholding of removal. See Dawson v. Garland, 998 F.3d 876, 880 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2021).
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. Barreto-Alonso’s
assertion that CAT protection was warranted because he “has already been
beaten and threatened” is belied by the record. During his removal proceedings,
Barreto-Alonso testified that he left Mexico when he was eight years old, has
not returned to Mexico, and was never harmed or threatened when he resided in
Mexico.
Additionally, Barreto-Alonso’s argument that the Mexican government
does not protect its citizens from cartel violence, did not establish government
acquiescence as is required for CAT relief. See Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland,
25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --