ROSENDO BLANCO-BAUTISTA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-70946 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 19 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSENDO BLANCO-BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-70946 Agency No. A089-090-554 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Immigration Judge’s Decision Submitted September 13, 2016** Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Rosendo Blanco-Bautista, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. 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, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, No. 13-74115, 2016 WL 3924013, at *4 (9th Cir. July 7, 2016), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Blanco-Bautista failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected ground, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c), because the evidence demonstrates the cartel targeted Blanco-Bautista in furtherance of its criminal enterprise, which does not support a finding for persecution on account of a protected ground, see Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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.”); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). We reject BlancoBautista’s contention that he was entitled to a presumption of future persecution. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Blanco-Bautista failed to show a reasonable possibility that he would be tortured by the government 2 15-70946 of Mexico or with its consent or acquiescence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c); GarciaMilian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2013). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-70946
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.
