RAFAEL ABARCA MERCADO V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 17-70373 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAFAEL ALEJANDRO ABARCA MERCADO, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-70373 Agency No. A200-248-479 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Rafael Alejandro Abarca Mercado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for * 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). asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review. We reject, as without merit, Mercado’s argument that the IJ erred in finding him removable, where Mercado conceded the allegations and the charge that he did not have a valid entry document at the time he sought entry to the United States and does not dispute these concessions on appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(i)(I). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mercado failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members has no nexus to a protected ground). Thus, in the absence of nexus to a protected ground, Mercado’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id.at 1015-16. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Mercado’s CAT claim because he has not shown it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the government of Mexico or with its consent or acquiescence. See 2 17-70373 Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-70373
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.
