United States v. 2020-01-28 | 16-73588 | GUADALUPE DIAZ GODOY V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUADALUPE DIAZ GODOY, AKA
Bartolo Valencia,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73588
Agency No. A206-412-042
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2020
**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Guadalupe Diaz Godoy (Diaz) petitions for review of a decision from the
Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing Diaz’s appeal of the denial of
his application seeking deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture.
FILED
JAN 28 2020
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 concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence,
we deny the petition for review. See Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738
(9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that to grant relief under the substantial evidence
standard of review, the evidence must compel a conclusion contrary to that reached
by the agency).
Substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that Diaz failed to
establish that he more likely than not would suffer torture upon removal to Mexico.
It is undisputed that no past torture existed. However, Diaz asserted fear of future
torture by the Knights Templar (Templars), for two reasons: (1) Diaz’s relatives
joined militias in opposition to the Templars to defend his hometown of La Ruana;
and (2) Diaz lost drugs allegedly belonging to the uncle of one of the Templars.
Diaz’s general allegations of torture committed in Mexico were insufficient
to meet his burden to establish that he, specifically, would suffer torture. See
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the
Templars killed one of Diaz’s relatives due to that relative’s participation in
militias that opposed the Templars, Diaz never indicated any intent to join a militia
if removed to Mexico. In addition, no evidence was presented that any Diaz family
member received threats or was killed for merely being related to a militiaman.
And Diaz’s representation of future torture by the Templars based on his loss of
2

drugs was mere speculation. See Xiao Fei Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36
(9th Cir. 2011) (noting that a speculative claim did not compel reversal of the
agency’s decision).
Substantial evidence also supported the finding that public officials would
not acquiesce in or remain willfully blind to Diaz being tortured. The record
reflected that local police investigated the death of Diaz’s relative, and the
government sent resources to La Ruana to investigate potential criminal violations
committed by the Templars and by militiamen. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399
F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that the evidence did not compel the
conclusion of government acquiescence when the police investigated “reports of
mistreatment”). We have carefully considered Diaz’s other arguments and
conclude that they are without merit.
PETITION DENIED.
3