MANUEL SANCHEZ GOMEZ, AKA Sergio E. Meza v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL SANCHEZ GOMEZ, AKA
Sergio E. Meza,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74028
Agency No. A077-197-850
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Immigration Judge’s Decision
Argued and Submitted March 9, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: CLIFTON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,** Senior District
Judge.
Manuel Sanchez-Gomez appeals the 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, see Villa-Anguiano v.
FILED
APR 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Holder, 727 F.3d 873, 875 (9th Cir. 2013); Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694 F.3d 955,
958 (9th Cir. 2012), and review the IJ’s factual determinations for substantial
evidence, see Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, — F.3d — (9th Cir. 2016).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Sanchez-Gomez failed
to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution on account of a protected
ground, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c), because the evidence demonstrates that the
kidnappers targeted Sanchez-Gomez based on his perceived wealth, which “will
not support a finding of persecution within the meaning of the [INA],” In re S-V-,
22 I. & N. Dec. 1306, 1310 (B.I.A. 2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Sanchez-Gomez
failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture “inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
person acting in an official capacity.” Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th
Cir. 2003) (emphasis omitted) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1)). No evidence
here demonstrates that a government official had “awareness of [torturous] activity
and thereafter breach[ed] his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such
activity.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(7). Evidence that a government has been generally
ineffective in investigating or preventing crime does not suffice to show
acquiescence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2013).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

We also deny Sanchez-Gomez’s motion for judicial notice of newspaper
articles that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d
955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --