Jordan Cardenas-Bautista v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORDAN CARDENAS-BAUTISTA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-968
Agency No.
A088-660-044
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2023**
Portland, Oregon
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Jordan Cardenas-Bautista, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his
appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). “We
review the legal determinations of the BIA de novo and the factual
* 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
JUN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 22-968
determinations for substantial evidence. Substantial evidence review requires
us to uphold the BIA’s determination unless the evidence compels a contrary
conclusion.” Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland, 47 F.4th 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2022)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
Cardenas-Bautista did not establish that he was persecuted on account of a
protected ground. The record does not compel the conclusion that Cardenas-
Bautista was an informant. Cf. Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081,
1091–93 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (concluding that an “informant” was part of a
cognizable social group under the circumstances because the petitioner’s
testimony in open court against the gang members who killed her father made
her “highly visible and recognizable by others”). Cardenas-Bautista did not
testify against the murderer or submit evidence that led to his conviction. See
id. Instead, Cardenas-Bautista presented a defense and testified in his own
criminal proceeding to prove his innocence.
2. The record does not compel the conclusion that Cardenas-
Bautista’s family relationship “was one central reason or even a reason” for his
past harm or fear of future harm. Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890
(9th Cir. 2021). As the BIA noted, “[Cardenas-Bautista’s] parents, sisters, and
brother-in-law have remained in [Jojutla] without harm.” If anything, it is more
likely that Cardenas-Bautista would be harmed “due to his association with the

-- 2 of 4 --

3 22-968
doctor’s murder.” See Kaur v. Garland, 2 F.4th 823, 834–35 (9th Cir. 2021)
(“It is a persecuting group’s motive . . . that is crucial to a determination of
whether a petitioner is entitled to” relief.) (citation, alteration, and internal
quotation marks omitted). The threats Cardenas-Bautista received were related
to his suspected involvement with the murder. Cardenas-Bautista even testified
that he believed he would be harmed because he “cooperated with the police.”
3. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. The record
does not compel the conclusion that Cardenas-Bautista, if removed, he would
more likely than not be tortured “by or at the instigation of or with the consent
or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official
capacity.” Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 914 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation
omitted). Cardenas-Bautista provided no compelling evidence that the Mexican
police supplied information regarding his deportation to the men he feared. See
Xiao Fei Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining
that speculative assertions are insufficient to support a CAT claim). Although
Cardenas-Bautista proffered expert testimony explaining that the Mexican
government is intertwined with organized crime, the police involved in
Cardenas-Bautista’s case released him after he was exonerated, and proceeded
against the actual killer. And after reviewing the country conditions reports, the
BIA reasonably determined that the Mexican government is engaged in efforts
to combat violence. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir.

-- 3 of 4 --

4 22-968
2016), as amended (holding that “general ineffectiveness” in the government’s
response to crime “will not suffice to show acquiescence”).
4. Cardenas-Bautista’s argument that he was prejudiced by the IJ’s
failure to fully credit his testimony relating to his past torture is without merit.
Any potential prejudice from the IJ’s adjudication was alleviated by the BIA’s
assumption that Cardenas-Bautista was “fully credible.” See Brezilien v.
Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended (concluding that “any
error committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the [BIA’s] application
of the correct legal standard”) (citation and alteration omitted).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --