United States v. 2020-07-23 | 19-73052 | GILBERTO MAYORGA CERDA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GILBERTO MAYORGA CERDA, AKA
Gilberto Mayor-Cerda,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-73052

Agency No. A029-246-892

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration Judge

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Gilberto Mayorga Cerda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he
did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico, and is thus not
entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8

*
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

JUL 23 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-73052
U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for
substantial evidence, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016),
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Mayorga Cerda
failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Mexico on account of a
protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”);
Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting political opinion
claim where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological
opposition to the gang’s ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief
to the petitioner); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(petitioner’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”).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Mayorga
Cerda failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Zheng v.
Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative).
We do not consider evidence that was not part of the record before the
agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

3 19-73052
The record does not support Mayorga Cerda’s contention that the IJ failed to
consider evidence or otherwise erred in the analysis of his claim.
In light of this disposition, Mayorga Cerda’s motion for a stay of removal
(Docket Entry No. 1) is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.