HERNANDEZ LOPEZ V. GARLAND, No. 22-1842 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 12 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELFIDO HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-1842 Agency No. A088-724-060 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 8, 2023 ** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Elfido Hernandez Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 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). ** § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Hernandez Lopez failed to prove it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official if returned to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Nothing in the record “compels a contrary conclusion.” Castillo v. Barr, 980 F.3d 1278, 1283 (9th Cir. 2020). Although Hernandez Lopez stated that he received threatening phone calls between 2000 and 2004, he could not identify who the callers were, what they wanted, or why they wanted to harm him. He could not identify anyone else who might harm him, and he testified that neither he nor any of his family members in Mexico had ever suffered torture in the country. Moreover, the “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico” Hernandez Lopez points to “is not particular to [him] and is insufficient” to obtain CAT protection. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating that a petitioner must show “a particularized threat of torture” (quoting Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008))). And his argument that he will be targeted because of his status as a deportee from the United States was unexhausted, so we decline to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). PETITION DENIED. 2 22-1842

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.