Salomon Almazo-Garcia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALOMON ALMAZO-GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70066
Agency No. A205-062-943
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District
Judge.
Salomon Almazo-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
* 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).
*** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 8 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
reopen removal proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam), we deny the petition for
review.
To reopen based on changed country conditions, the movant must produce
previously unavailable evidence that conditions have materially changed in the
country of removal and show prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See
Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017).
1. The BIA properly found that Almazo-Garcia had “not demonstrated
materially changed country conditions in Mexico” between 2012 and 2015. In his
declaration, Almazo states that “[t]here is a lot of violence going on [in Mexico] at
this time.” The 2015 Human Rights Report, introduced by Almazo-Garcia, states
that impunity for human rights abuses and corruption in the law enforcement and
justice system “remained” serious problems and that threats and violence against
various groups “persisted.”
2. The BIA properly found that Almazo-Garcia had “not established his
[prima facie] eligibility for relief.” An applicant for asylum and withholding of
removal “must demonstrate a nexus between [his] . . . feared harm and a protected

-- 2 of 3 --

3
ground.”1 Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021). Neither the
2015 Human Rights Report nor Almazo’s declaration provides information about
his claimed particular social group—“Mexicans who are perceived to have wealth
and who return to Mexico after having resided in the United States fo[r] many
years.” Almazo’s “fear . . . [that] people are being kidnapped and even killed” in
Mexico lacks any nexus to this particular social group. See Zetino v. Holder, 622
F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Similarly, the BIA properly found that Almazo
could not meet the requirements for CAT protection because his evidence of
general crime and violence in Mexico “does not indicate a likelihood of [torture].”
See Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152.
PETITION DENIED.
1 Although the BIA improperly cited the same nexus standard for asylum
and withholding of removal, we draw “no distinction” between the two standards
when “there [is] no nexus at all.” Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360
(9th Cir. 2017). Because the BIA found an “absence of a nexus” between the
“general conditions of crime and violence” in Mexico and “a statutorily protected
ground,” its misstatement of the law affected “neither the result nor the BIA’s
basic reasoning.” Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019).

-- 3 of 3 --