VALERIO SALAZAR-BELTRAN V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 18-71577 (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 8 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALERIO SALAZAR-BELTRAN, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-71577 Agency No. A072-321-043 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. Valerio Salazar-Beltran petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order * 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. denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and any legal questions de novo, see Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny the petition for review. 1. Salazar does not challenge the agency’s conclusion that his asylum application was untimely. Therefore, he has forfeited any claim of error. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 703 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010). 2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Salazar is ineligible for withholding of removal because he did not show a nexus between his feared persecution and his family members’ police service. See INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (holding that withholding applicant “must provide some evidence of [his persecutors’ motives], direct or circumstantial”). Salazar’s mother stated that the “entire family . . . has received death threats by criminal gangs” because Salazar’s father “placed a lot of criminals in prison” and that his father was shot “[i]n consequence to these actions and threats.” However, Salazar’s mother does not provide any details regarding his father’s police activities, the threats, or the shooting incident that would explain why she believes his father’s police service was a causal factor in the shooting. The record contains no evidence connecting Salazar’s father’s kidnapping with his father’s 2 police service. The other incidents of violence that Salazar identifies merely illustrate his fear of violence and kidnappings due to the dangerous conditions in Mexico. They bear “no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). 3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Salazar is ineligible for CAT protection. The agency properly found that Salazar failed to show he “would be recognized by his family’s . . . assailants after having departed Mexico over 30 years [earlier].” Salazar stated that the families of criminals his father arrested would recognize him because he “used to follow [his] father a lot when he worked,” but Salazar left Mexico at age 13, and there is no evidence of recent threats against him or his family. The agency also properly found that Salazar “could . . . reasonably relocate [within Mexico] if necessary to avoid harm.” See Dawson v. Garland, 998 F.3d 876, 885 (9th Cir. 2021). Salazar’s father relocated to a nearby municipality upon retirement and “managed to stay safe” there for at least 18 years. As for Salazar’s “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico,” the agency properly found that it “is not particular to [him] and is insufficient to meet [the] standard” for CAT protection. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION 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.
