FELIPE IBARRA MORENO V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 15-70144 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FELIPE DE JESUS IBARRA MORENO, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-70144 Agency No. A075-111-778 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Felipe de Jesus Ibarra Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual * 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). findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ibarra Moreno failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico and a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial” (emphasis in original)); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, Ibarra Moreno’s withholding of removal claim fails. We do not reach Ibarra Moreno’s remaining contentions regarding withholding of removal. See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We may affirm the [agency] only on grounds set forth in the opinion under review.”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ibarra Moreno failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by 2 15-70144 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). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-70144

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.