Ricardo Reynoso Aguilera v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO REYNOSO AGUILERA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-841
Agency No.
A205-056-582
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: BYBEE and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO, District
Judge.***
Ricardo Reynoso Aguilera petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration
Judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the Convention
* 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 Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-841
Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and
we deny the petition for review.
1. We conclude substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of
CAT relief. Petitioner’s speculative concern that he may be extorted if he
returns to Mexico is insufficient to meet his burden of showing it is “more likely
than not” that he would be tortured if removed. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The
country-conditions evidence Petitioner included with his CAT application is
insufficient to prove that he faces an individualized risk of extortion or other
harm in Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.
2010) (per curiam) (holding that “generalized evidence of violence and crime in
Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet [the CAT]
standard”). And though Petitioner’s brother faced extortion in La Barca,
Jalisco, the record shows that Petitioner’s parents and three other siblings have
faced no harm in Mexico, and none of his family members have faced harm in
Tequila, Jalisco, where Petitioner says he would live if deported to Mexico.
2. We decline to consider Petitioner’s argument that we should “remand
for PD [prosecutorial discretion].” Petitioner did not raise this argument before
the BIA, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), and regardless, enforcement decisions are
“generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.” Ayanian v. Garland,
64 F.4th 1074, 1085 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821,
831 (1985)).
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-841
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --