Jose Luis Martinez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1802
Agency No.
A200-947-235
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Homeland Security
Submitted March 29, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, LEE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Martinez (Luis Martinez), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of a determination by an Immigration Judge (IJ) that he failed to
establish a reasonable fear of future persecution or torture sufficient to warrant a
* 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
APR 12 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1802
hearing on the merits of his claim for withholding of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
“We review an IJ’s determination that [a non-citizen] did not establish a
reasonable fear of persecution or torture for substantial evidence, which means that
we must uphold the IJ’s conclusion unless, based on the evidence, any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Orozco-Lopez v.
Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation and alterations omitted).
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Luis Martinez
failed to establish a nexus between a protected ground and past harm. Martinez
having been robbed over ten years ago by random people did not establish a nexus
to a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010),
as amended (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated
by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected
ground. . . .”) (citations omitted).
2. The IJ’s determination that there is not a reasonable probability of future
harm on account of Luis Martinez being a family member of his uncle, who was
murdered by members of the cartel, is also supported by substantial evidence. The
record reflects that only one of Luis Martinez’s two cousins living in the area
where his uncle was killed has been threatened by the cartel. The cousin who was
threatened had also reported the uncle’s killers to the police and had a close

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1802
relationship with Luis Martinez’s uncle, whereas Luis Martinez has not lived in
Mexico for over a decade. And he was not residing there when his uncle was
murdered. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1065 (9th Cir. 2021) (concluding
that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable fear of persecution because
“there [was] an insufficient basis in the record to conclude that [the petitioner’s
persecutors] would have a continuing interest in [the petitioner]”).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --