IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ-CAYETANO V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 13-72629 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ-CAYETANO, AKA Ignacio Rodriguez Cayetano, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 13-72629 Agency No. A205-319-504 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 17, 2021** Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Ignacio Rodriguez-Cayetano, 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 cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. The agency properly denied cancellation of removal, where RodriguezCayetano failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that his conviction under California Health & Safety Code (“CHSC”) section 11377(a) is not a controlled substance violation that renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 766 (2021) (an applicant for relief from removal cannot establish eligibility where a conviction record is inconclusive as to which elements of a divisible statute formed the offense); Coronado, 759 F.3d at 984-85 (holding CHSC § 11377(a) is divisible with regard to substance and subject to the modified categorical approach). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that RodriguezCayetano failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was or will be on account of 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”); see also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a 2 13-72629 protected ground); 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, Rodriguez-Cayetano’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Rodriguez-Cayetano failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative); see also Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief). The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 13-72629
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.
