Jose Corona v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE CORONA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-106
Agency No.
A206-191-722
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 5, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: N.R. SMITH, SANCHEZ, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Corona, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or “Board”) decision affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
* 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
DEC 7 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 23-106
the BIA’s denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, see
Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022), and we deny the
petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s rejection of Corona’s
proposed particular social group, defined as “male members of the community
of La Cuchara, Michoacan, who refuse to bear arms and join the community
action [security] group[].” A “particular social group” must consist of members
who share a common immutable characteristic, be defined with particularity,
and be recognized as socially distinct by the society in question. Matter of M-
E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014); see also Reyes v. Lynch, 842
F.3d 1125, 1135 (9th Cir. 2016). We have held that “generalized opposition to
gangs” is not a cognizable particular social group. Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder,
707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Moreover, “resistance to a
gang’s recruitment efforts alone does not constitute political opinion.” Ramos-
Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 862 (9th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up), abrogated on
other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas, 707 F.3d at 1093.
While Corona’s testimony indicates that his relatives and other
community members may have been forced to join the protection groups to
defend against cartels, the record is devoid of evidence that Mexican society
perceives those who refuse to join a community action security group as
recognizable or discrete from society at large so as to constitute a cognizable
“particular social group.” The BIA properly concluded that Corona’s proposed

-- 2 of 4 --

3 23-106
particular social group was not “appreciably different from gang recruitment
based social groups that have not been found to be cognizable by [this Court].”
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that
Corona did not establish that he would be unable to relocate within Mexico to
escape any feared harm. Corona argues that he “not only faces the threat of
violence from the drug cartels trying to take over La Cuchara, but is also facing
harm from the local community action security group.” However, Corona
failed to present any evidence that the community action security group, which
he contends exerts influence only in the local community, would seek him out
were he to relocate to a different Mexican town to conduct his farm work. Nor
has he presented evidence that he faces a particularized risk of harm from any
drug cartel. Rather, he argues that “Mexican drug cartels are everywhere” and
“he is most likely to encounter the cartel again in some other shape or
form.” Such generalized fear of crime is inadequate for relief. Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“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.”). Accordingly, the BIA
properly denied Corona’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal.
3. Finally, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination
that Corona is not eligible for CAT protection because he failed to establish a
clear probability of torture by or with the acquiescence of a government official.
Corona fails to demonstrate substantial grounds as to why it is more likely than

-- 3 of 4 --

4 23-106
not that he would be susceptible to future torture at the hands of drug cartels.
His allegations about Mexican police beholden to “corruption or fear” are
similarly far too general to be grounds for protection under the CAT. See
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)
(“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not
particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet [the CAT] standard.”); B.R.
v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 844–45 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that, while
generalized country reports suggest occasionally “some corrupt officials may
tum a blind eye to criminal activity, the Mexican government, rather than being
willfully blind to cartel violence and torture, actively combats and prosecutes
cartel activity”). The record evidence supports the Board’s determination that
Corona is not eligible for CAT protection.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --