Baez Perez v. Blanche

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS ALBERTO BAEZ PEREZ; YESICA No. 25-5099 GUADA OLIVAS RODRIGUEZ; A. Y. B. Agency Nos. O.; J. E. B. O.; D. D. J. B. O.; D. A. B. O., A240-428-177 A240-428-178 Petitioners, A240-428-179 A240-428-180 v. A240-428-181 A240-428-182 TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 14, 2026** Reno, Nevada Before: BADE, FORREST, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Luis Alberto Baez Perez, his wife Yesica Guada Olivas Rodriguez, and their four minor children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

1. Petitioners argue that the agency erred by denying asylum and withholding of removal.2 As the agency observed, Petitioners were unharmed in Mexico. And the record shows only general violence and crime in Mexico, which alone do not establish past persecution or an “objectively reasonable” fear of future persecution. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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.”); see also Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 646 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating that asylum is generally “not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground” (citation omitted)); Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2021) (“We have repeatedly denied petitions for review when, among other factors, the record did not demonstrate significant physical harm.”). This lack of nexus is fatal to Petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017).

2. Petitioners also argue that the agency erred by denying CAT protection. For this relief, an applicant must show it is “more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The torture must be “inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see Singh v. Garland, 57 F.4th 643, 658–59 (9th Cir. 2023), abrogated on other grounds by Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. 537 (2026). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioners did not meet this burden.

Petitioners did not personally suffer any harm, let alone any harm that rose to the level of torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (defining torture). Additionally, the Mexican government intervened to protect them from the criminal activity that they relied on in seeking relief. Petitioners thus have failed to show a particularized risk of harm or a likelihood of government acquiescence in such harm, and therefore they have failed to show that the record compels the conclusion they are entitled to CAT relief. See Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980

PETITION DENIED.