Hector Bolanos Casas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR BOLANOS CASAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-541
Agency No.
A205-941-255
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Hector Bolanos Casas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
NOV 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-541
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.
2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Bolanos Casas
failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017);
Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Purely personal
retribution is, of course, not persecution on account of political opinion.”). We do
not address Bolanos Casas’ contentions as to whether the past harm rose to the
level of persecution or whether the government of Mexico is unable or unwilling to
protect him because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision
of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, Bolanos Casas’ withholding of removal
claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Bolanos Casas failed to show he will be tortured by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589
F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-541
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --