Hernandez Solorzano v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 16 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALONDRA HERNANDEZ No. 22-1860 SOLORZANO; ASHLEY ALEJANDRA Agency Nos. HERNANDEZ A216-272-007 SOLORZANO; JONATHAN JESUS A216-272-008 RAMIREZ HERNANDEZ, A216-272-009 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 11, 2024** San Francisco, California Before: KOH and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges, and SIMON, District Judge.*** * 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 Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.  Alondra Hernandez Solorzano and her children Ashley Alejandra Hernandez Solorzano and Jonathan Jesus Ramirez Hernandez, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny the petition. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision on the basis that Hernandez Solorzano did not establish that she is unable to relocate within Mexico to avoid future harm. Because this determination is dispositive of all of Hernandez Solorzano’s claims, we need not address the IJ’s additional reasons for denying relief. To the extent that the BIA incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as its own, “we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 909 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002)). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that it would not be unreasonable for Hernandez Solorzano to relocate within Mexico to avoid future persecution. Because Hernandez Solorzano concedes that she has not established past persecution (and does not contend that future persecution would be at the 2 22-1860 hands of the government), she bears the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for her to relocate to avoid future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(3)(i) (asylum), 1208.16(b)(3)(i) (withholding of removal); Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1163–64 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (petitioners seeking CAT protection carry “the overall burden of proof” to demonstrate a likelihood of torture, one relevant factor of which is the “possibility of relocation within the country of removal”). The IJ found that Hernandez Solorzano’s mother, father, and uncle—the latter two of whom were directly threatened—have all successfully relocated within Mexico without harassment or violence. The IJ further concluded that Hernandez Solorzano could avoid future persecution by similarly relocating. Hernandez Solorzano offers no particularized evidence to dispute this finding, only her speculation that it would not be “illogical” to conclude that the gang members who threatened her family would follow her family to another region of Mexico. To be sure, Hernandez Solorzano points to widespread violence in Mexico, including the state to which her family members relocated. Such evidence, however (some of which is not in the record), does not “compel[] a contrary conclusion” to that of the BIA. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). 3 22-1860  PETITION DENIED.1 1 The temporary stay of removal shall remain in effect until issuance of the mandate. The motion for stay of removal is otherwise denied. 4 22-1860