URBANO CAZAREZ-ACOSTA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-70769 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 15 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT URBANO CAZAREZ-ACOSTA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-70769 Agency No. A205-297-822 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 12, 2019** Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Urbano Cazarez-Acosta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Cazarez-Acosta established changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Cazarez-Acosta’s asylum claim fails. Cazarez-Acosta fears harm in Mexico based on his family membership and as an Americanized returnee. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cazarez-Acosta failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [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.”). Thus, Cazarez-Acosta’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Cazarez-Acosta failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject Cazarez-Acosta’s contention that the agency failed to consider 2 18-70769 evidence of country conditions in Mexico. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 18-70769
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.
