United States v. 2020-07-15 | 18-72839 | OTILIA DELACRUZ-PEREZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OTILIA DELACRUZ-PEREZ, AKA
Othilia De La Cruz-Perez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72839
Agency No. A205-274-151
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2020
**
Seattle, Washington
Before: CLIFTON, D.M. FISHER,
***
and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Otilia de la Cruz-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal of the
FILED
JUL 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
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 D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT relief. We
deny the petition.
This court reviews “denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable,
substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Yali
Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation
omitted). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and
reverse only if the record “compels” a contrary conclusion. Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted).
1. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that any future
harm that de la Cruz would experience from Los Zetas in Mexico would be only
for economic reasons, and would not be on account of her political opinion or
membership in her family. De la Cruz testified about incidents involving her
husband’s cousins, but there is no contention that they were harmed on account of
their political opinion or family membership. Moreover, de la Cruz submitted a
2

declaration stating that her “father was targeted because our family’s ranch is large,
and there are multiple houses on it.”
1

2. Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that de la Cruz
did not show that she would more likely than not be tortured if removed to
Mexico.
2
The BIA relied, in part, on the IJ’s finding that her brother had been
removed to Mexico, now resides with de la Cruz’s mother in the same place that de
la Cruz will live if she returns to Mexico, and has not been targeted by Los Zetas.
In this petition, de la Cruz claims that the agency’s reliance on her brother’s
situation in Mexico ignored evidence demonstrating that “a male who is targeted
by the gangs is at far less personal risk than a woman who is targeted.” De la Cruz
never raised an argument to the BIA that the IJ failed to consider evidence that
being a woman would make her more vulnerable than her brother to future torture,
and it is therefore unexhausted. See Abebe, 554 F.3d at 1207-08. Even considered
1
To the extent that de la Cruz argues that she will be targeted based on
Los Zetas’ alleged dual motive to suppress political opposition, or in retaliation for
her family’s potential future resistance to Los Zetas, we lack jurisdiction to
consider these arguments because de la Cruz failed to exhaust them before the
BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2009).
2
Because we affirm on the grounds that de la Cruz has failed to meet
her burden of proof as to the likelihood of torture, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), we
need not address her arguments regarding acquiescence by a public official. See
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.4 (9th Cir. 2016).
3

on the merits, the evidence that she cites does not compel the conclusion that she
would be more vulnerable than her brother based on her status as a woman.
PETITION DENIED.
4