Jose Luis Heredia-Betancourt v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS HEREDIA-BETANCOURT,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1618
Agency No.
A079-769-440
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jose Luis Heredia-Betancourt timely seeks review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of relief from removal. Reviewing de
novo the BIA’s legal conclusions and reviewing for substantial evidence its
factual findings, Perez-Portillo v. Garland, 56 F.4th 788, 792 (9th Cir. 2022),
we deny the petition.
* 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
JUL 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1618
1. The BIA permissibly concluded that Petitioner’s proposed particular
social group—“Mexican nationals returning from abroad living in the U.S. for a
lengthy time who are perceived to have money”—is not cognizable. See, e.g.,
Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that
the proposed particular social group of “imputed wealthy Americans” in Mexico
was not cognizable); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1150–52 (9th
Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (holding that the proposed particular social group of
“Mexicans returning home from the United States” was not cognizable).
Because Petitioner failed to establish a causal nexus to a statutorily protected
ground, the BIA appropriately rejected Petitioner’s claims for asylum and
withholding of removal. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012,
1016 (9th Cir. 2023) (“For both asylum and withholding claims, a petitioner
must prove a causal nexus between one of her statutorily protected
characteristics and either her past harm or her objectively tenable fear of future
harm.”). We need not, and do not, reach the BIA’s alternative holding that
Petitioner failed to file a timely asylum application.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner
does not qualify for relief under the Convention Against Torture because he
failed to establish that he would more likely than not be subjected to torture
inflicted by governmental officials or with their acquiescence. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2). Petitioner presented no evidence of a particularized fear of
torture and, although the Mexican government’s efforts to combat torture have

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1618
not been very effective, Petitioner has not shown that governmental officials
would participate or acquiesce in torture against him. See Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Nor does evidence that a
government has been generally ineffective in preventing or investigating
criminal activities raise an inference that public officials are likely to acquiesce
in torture, absent evidence of corruption or other inability or unwillingness to
oppose criminal organizations.”). Although the evidence of country conditions
suggests some instances of corruption in Mexico or an inability to oppose
criminal organizations in some contexts, the record does not compel the
conclusion that Petitioner in particular, more likely than not, would be the
victim of such deficiencies or any other situation involving governmental
acquiescence in torture.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --