Rodrigo Luna Martinez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODRIGO LUNA MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-996
Agency No.
A201-241-356
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 23, 2023**
Portland, Oregon
Before: BENNETT, VANDYKE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Rodrigo Luna Martinez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of
his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
* 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
AUG 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-996
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions.
Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023). We review
questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. We deny
the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA and IJ’s holding that Luna
Martinez is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal because he does not
have a well-founded fear of persecution. Although the IJ found, and the BIA
agreed, that Luna Martinez had “a subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable
fear” of persecution in Puebla, Mexico, his family’s hometown, they also found
that Luna Martinez could avoid persecution by safely relocating to another part of
the country and that it would be reasonable to expect him to do so. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii) (asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2) (withholding of removal);
Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 659–60 (9th Cir. 2019).
The country conditions reports in the record support this finding. And
though Luna Martinez’s communication, anxiety, and attention disorders may
make it difficult for him to navigate daily life without the help of his family, his
many years as an effective Herbalife salesman, his ability to maintain a job in
construction, and the fact that Spanish is his first language, all support the BIA and
IJ’s conclusion that he could reasonably be expected to independently establish

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-996
himself outside of Puebla. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(iii) (where persecutor is a
private actor, presumption is that internal relocation is reasonable unless applicant
establishes otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence).
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA and IJ’s holding that Luna
Martinez is not eligible for CAT relief because he failed to establish that it is more
likely than not that he will be tortured after removal to Mexico. The country
conditions reports submitted by Luna Martinez indicate that there are parts of
Mexico that are relatively safe. As discussed above, substantial evidence supports
the BIA and IJ’s conclusion that Luna Martinez could reasonably be expected to
relocate to one such place. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii) (evidence of ability to
relocate is relevant to assessing whether it is more likely than not that petitioner
will be tortured after removal).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --