CARLOS ALVARADO-RAMIREZ, AKA Galvino Barrera Barojas, AKA Jose Contreras Zaragoza,… v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ALVARADO-RAMIREZ, AKA
Galvino Barrera Barojas, AKA Jose
Contreras Zaragoza, AKA Luis Garcia-
Vega,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70895
Agency No. A200-975-936
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 17, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, COLLINS, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
FEB 22 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

-- 1 of 3 --

Carlos Alvarado-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Alvarado-Ramirez’s application for
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings underlying its
determinations. Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 641–42 (9th Cir. 2021). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if Alvarado-
Ramirez had otherwise established a well-founded fear of future persecution, he
failed to show that he could not avoid such persecution by relocating within
Mexico. See Hussain, 985 F.3d at 646 (“Even if the standard [for well-founded
fear of persecution] is met, an applicant is still ineligible [for relief] if it would be
reasonable under the circumstances to relocate within the country to avoid future
persecution.”). The BIA properly found that the harm Alvarado-Ramirez fears is
based on a land dispute between his father and brother and that Alvarado-
Ramirez’s assertions that he would experience harm even if he moved “away from
the disputed land” were speculative and unsupported. Alvarado-Ramirez’s reliance
on evidence of other threats or of general violence does not compel a contrary
conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Hussain, 985 F.3d at 649
2

-- 2 of 3 --

(explaining that an applicant “cannot successfully argue that relocation is
unreasonable because the country at large is subject to generalized violence,”
unless he shows that “he is at risk of country-wide targeted persecution”).
Alvarado-Ramirez’s contention that the IJ violated the procedural
requirements set out in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011), lacks
merit. The IJ denied Alvarado’s application because his credible testimony did not
show facts sufficient to demonstrate his entitlement to relief, not for lack of
corroboration, and the protections set out in Ren therefore did not apply. See Yali
Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that an
applicant must “satisfy the IJ that her testimony is credible, is persuasive, and
refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate” entitlement to relief; if the
applicant fails to meet this burden, then the IJ has “no obligation to give [the
applicant] an additional opportunity to bolster her case by submitting further
evidence,” and the protections set out in Ren do not apply (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
Petition for Review DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --