GREGORIA LUCIA GARCIA MARTINEZ, AKA Rosa Maria Estrada Ortiz v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORIA LUCIA GARCIA
MARTINEZ, AKA Rosa Maria Estrada
Ortiz,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70864
Agency No. A201-273-915
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 5, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,*** District
Judge.
Gregoria Garcia Martinez (“Garcia”) petitions for review of the decision of
* 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 William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge
for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial of her claims for
asylum and other forms of relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1). We deny Garcia’s petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that she did not
qualify for asylum or withholding of removal because she could safely and
reasonably relocate within Mexico. Even assuming that Garcia established past
persecution as a member of a cognizable particular social group, she testified
credibly that she had a plan for relocation to avoid future persecution. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii), 1208.13(b)(3)(i); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069
(9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he IJ may deny eligibility for asylum to an applicant who has
otherwise demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution where the evidence
establishes that internal relocation is a reasonable option under all of the
circumstances.” (citation omitted)). Consequently, Garcia does not qualify for
asylum or withholding of removal, and we need not reach her other assertions of
error.
Likewise, we find no clear error in the BIA’s determination that Garcia did
not show that she will more likely than not be tortured by or at the behest of a
person acting in an official capacity if she returns to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.18(a)(1); Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 508 (9th Cir. 2013).
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --