Antonia Quintero Carrizoza De Hunt v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIA QUINTERO CARRIZOZA DE
HUNT,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1399
Agency No. A037-803-362
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2023**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: GOULD, HURWITZ, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Antonia Quintero Carrizoza de Hunt (“Carrizoza”) petitions for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from
an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 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).
FILED
SEP 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition for review.
1. Reviewing de novo, see Oshodi v. Holder, 729 F.3d 883, 889 (9th Cir.
2013) (en banc), we reject Carrizoza’s claim that she was denied due process because
the IJ declined to admit a police report and hospital records. To show a due process
violation, Carrizoza must establish that (1) the proceeding was so fundamentally
unfair that she was prevented from reasonably presenting her case and (2) the alleged
violation may have affected the outcome of the proceeding. See Vilchez v. Holder,
682 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 2012). That is not the case here. Carrizoza had almost
three years after the remand to the IJ to obtain any relevant documentation but failed
to seek the documents until thirty days before the merits hearing and did not submit
them to the IJ until the day of the hearing. Moreover, although declining to admit
the documents, the IJ allowed Carrizoza to testify about them and found her
testimony credible.
2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Carrizoza failed to show
a likelihood of torture if removed. “In assessing whether it is more likely than not
that an applicant would be tortured in the proposed country of removal,” an IJ should
consider “evidence of past torture” and “evidence that the applicant could relocate
to . . . where he or she is not likely to be tortured.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(i)–(ii)
(cleaned up). Although an attack by cartel members seriously injured Carrizoza, this

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Court has previously held that even severe beatings do not compel a finding of
torture. See Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013); Ahmed v.
Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2007); Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043,
1047–48, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006). And the IJ reasonably found that Carrizoza could
relocate in Mexico to avoid her attackers. See Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32
F.4th 696, 704–05 (9th Cir. 2022). Carrizoza lived without incident in Mexico for
over six months after the attack, and her brother lives safely in a different part of
Mexico.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --