SALOMON ALMAZO-GARCIA V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 17-70066 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 8 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SALOMON ALMAZO-GARCIA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70066 Agency No. A205-062-943 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 14, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: NGUYEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge. Salomon Almazo-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to * 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). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. reopen removal proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam), we deny the petition for review. To reopen based on changed country conditions, the movant must produce previously unavailable evidence that conditions have materially changed in the country of removal and show prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017). 1. The BIA properly found that Almazo-Garcia had “not demonstrated materially changed country conditions in Mexico” between 2012 and 2015. In his declaration, Almazo states that “[t]here is a lot of violence going on [in Mexico] at this time.” The 2015 Human Rights Report, introduced by Almazo-Garcia, states that impunity for human rights abuses and corruption in the law enforcement and justice system “remained” serious problems and that threats and violence against various groups “persisted.” 2. The BIA properly found that Almazo-Garcia had “not established his [prima facie] eligibility for relief.” An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal “must demonstrate a nexus between [his] . . . feared harm and a protected 2 ground.”1 Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021). Neither the 2015 Human Rights Report nor Almazo’s declaration provides information about his claimed particular social group—“Mexicans who are perceived to have wealth and who return to Mexico after having resided in the United States fo[r] many years.” Almazo’s “fear . . . [that] people are being kidnapped and even killed” in Mexico lacks any nexus to this particular social group. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Similarly, the BIA properly found that Almazo could not meet the requirements for CAT protection because his evidence of general crime and violence in Mexico “does not indicate a likelihood of [torture].” See Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152. PETITION DENIED. 1 Although the BIA improperly cited the same nexus standard for asylum and withholding of removal, we draw “no distinction” between the two standards when “there [is] no nexus at all.” Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). Because the BIA found an “absence of a nexus” between the “general conditions of crime and violence” in Mexico and “a statutorily protected ground,” its misstatement of the law affected “neither the result nor the BIA’s basic reasoning.” Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019). 3
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.
