Arturo Tavares-Montelongo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTURO TAVARES-MONTELONGO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-480
Agency No.
A072-891-259
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Tavares-Montelongo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
* 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
MAY 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-480
findings for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241
(9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Tavares-
Montelongo did not establish a clear probability of future persecution in
Mexico. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2004) (no clear
probability of future persecution); see also Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083,
1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s fear of future persecution was not objectively
reasonable where similarly situated family members continued to live in home
country unharmed). To the extent Tavares-Montelongo claims the agency
applied the incorrect legal standard or otherwise erred in its analysis, we reject
these contentions as unsupported by the record. Thus, Tavares-Montelongo’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
We do not address Tavares-Montelongo’s contentions regarding the
particularly serious crime bar because the BIA did not deny relief on that
ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied
upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because
Tavares-Montelongo failed to show it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-480
Tavares-Montelongo’s contention that the agency erred by assigning his
case to a one-member panel lacks merit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --