FRANCISCO TORRES V. ROBERT WILKINSON, No. 16-71850 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 25 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO DAVID TORRES, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71850 Agency No. A208-081-956 MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Francisco David Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our * 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 is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency’s determination that Torres failed to establish any nexus to a protected ground is supported by the record. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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”). We therefore do not remand for the agency to apply BarajasRomero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that the protected ground need only be “a reason” for withholding of removal claims, whereas it must be “one central reason” for asylum claims). We lack jurisdiction to consider the new particular social group proposed in Torres’s opening brief, “family members of taxi drivers targeted by cartels,” because he did not raise this group before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Torres’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Torres failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the 2 16-71850 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 in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 16-71850
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.
