RAUL FLORES TRINIDAD V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-71385 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAUL DE JESUS FLORES TRINIDAD, AKA Raul De Jesus Flores, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-71385 Agency No. A087-681-924 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Raul de Jesus Flores Trinidad, 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 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Flores Trinidad failed to show that the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’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”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner who establishes membership in particular social group must also “establish that any persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting political opinion claim where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition to the gang’s ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the petitioner). Our conclusion is not affected by the differing nexus standards applicable to asylum and withholding of removal claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing Zetino having drawn no distinction between the standards where there was no nexus at all to a protected ground). Thus, Flores Trinidad’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 2 19-71385 In light of this disposition, we do not reach Flores Trinidad’s contentions concerning the timeliness of his asylum application and the cognizability of his proposed social groups. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Flores Trinidad failed to show it is more likely than not he would 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). We reject as unsupported by the record Flores Trinidad’s contentions that the agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-71385
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.
