Cristoval Reyes Napoles v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISTOVAL REYES NAPOLES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-874
Agency No.
A077-395-195
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 18, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
Cristoval Reyes Napoles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
* 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
OCT 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Torture (CAT). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount
them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review denials of
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT for substantial evidence. Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Reyes Napoles did not
demonstrate a nexus between his alleged persecution and membership in his
family. “Harm to a child can amount to past persecution of the parent when that
harm is, at least in part, directed against the parent ‘on account of’ or ‘because of’
the parent’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.” Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1084 (9th Cir. 2013)
(citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A) (asylum) and 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding of
removal) (emphasis in original)). Similarly, “acts of violence against a petitioner’s
friends or family members may establish a well-founded fear” of future
persecution, but the violence must “create a pattern of persecution closely tied to
the petitioner.” Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991).
The record shows that Reyes Napoles’s son Ricardo Reyes Gonzalez was
most likely threatened because he witnessed a shooting. While Reyes Napoles’s
other son Cristobal Reyes Gonzalez was very likely murdered because of his
relationship to Ricardo, Reyes Napoles has not been harmed or threatened on
account of his relationship to Ricardo. If the attackers had been motivated to kill

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Ricardo’s family members, they could have harmed Reyes Napoles’s wife or
grandchildren when they came to Reyes Napoles’s home—but they did not.
Substantial evidence therefore supports the BIA’s finding that Reyes Napoles’s
asylum and withholding claims fail for lack of nexus to a protected ground.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Reyes Napoles did
not demonstrate a likelihood of torture if returned to Mexico. To qualify for CAT
relief, “[t]he torture must be by government officials or private actors with
government acquiescence.” Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019).
The death threat that Ricardo received likely constitutes “torture” because the
attackers followed through when they hunted for him and killed Cristobal. But
Reyes Napoles did not show that any future harm would be by or with the
acquiescence of the Mexican government. While the record suggests that the
police did not begin an investigation after Ricardo was threatened, the police
responded appropriately after Cristobal was killed: they cordoned off the scene and
interviewed witnesses, including Reyes Napoles’s wife. There is no evidence that
the government was “willfully blind” to the family’s situation or that it was
“unwilling to oppose it.” Kaur v. Garland, 2 F.4th 823, 837 (9th Cir. 2021)
(quoting Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011)).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --