BOLANOS CASAS V. GARLAND, No. 23-541 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HECTOR BOLANOS CASAS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-541 Agency No. A205-941-255 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Hector Bolanos Casas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection 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. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Bolanos Casas failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017); Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Purely personal retribution is, of course, not persecution on account of political opinion.”). We do not address Bolanos Casas’ contentions as to whether the past harm rose to the level of persecution or whether the government of Mexico is unable or unwilling to protect him because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See SantiagoRodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, Bolanos Casas’ withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Bolanos Casas failed to show he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 23-541 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 23-541

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.