Rodrigo Chacon-Ornelas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODRIGO CHACON-ORNELAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70154
Agency No. A089-862-138
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of an
Immigration Judge
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Rodrigo Chacon-Ornelas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31
that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and thus
is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction
* 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
MAR 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-70154
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an IJ’s negative
reasonable fear determination. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th
Cir. 2016). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Chacon-Ornelas
failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Mexico on account of a
protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even
if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still
show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such
group”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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 supports the IJ’s determination that Chacon-Ornelas
failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia, 828
F.3d at 836-37 (no government acquiescence demonstrated).
Chacon-Ornelas’s contention that the IJ’s order lacked adequate reasoning
fails. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 813-814 (9th Cir. 2018) (“In
expedited proceedings (such as these), IJs do not have the ability nor are they

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-70154
required to provide detailed decisions outlining all the claims raised by the alien.”);
see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error is required to
prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --