GABRIEL FERNANDO-PULIDO V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-70259 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIEL FERNANDO-PULIDO, AKA Luis Gerardo Diaz Ortiz, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70259 Agency No. A096-549-910 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 11, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: BERZON, R. NELSON, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Gabriel Fernando-Pulido petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to affirm the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review such denials for substantial evidence and will only reverse if the evidence “compels” a contrary * 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). result. Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 738–39 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that there was no nexus between Fernando-Pulido’s feared harm and his kinship ties, which is required for asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018). While Fernando-Pulido’s family members have apparently suffered a series of tragic events, they do not appear to be related to each other. Nor do they suggest that Fernando-Pulido himself may face persecution based on these kinship ties. Fernando-Pulido alleges that his grandmother was murdered, but he admits that he does not know why she was killed. Fernando-Pulido also states that his aunt was kidnapped, but his testimony conflicts with his aunt’s testimony about who carried out the kidnapping. Finally, Fernando-Pulido himself admitted to the BIA that there was no indication that the man who threatened his brother had any connection with the other men who allegedly harmed his family. 2. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. To qualify for CAT relief, an alien must establish a likelihood of torture if removed to the proposed country of removal. Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011). Torture requires the harm to be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official 2 capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). There is little evidence in the record that the men who murdered Pulido’s grandmother were related to the government. Indeed, Fernando-Pulido himself admits that he does not have any proof of that beyond his testimony, which is based on secondhand information from his mother and aunt. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED 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.
