Ricardo Valdivia-Anguiano v. Merrick Garland, 19-70186

Petitioner Ricardo Valdivia‑Anguiano, a Mexican national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on fear of targeting by Mexican cartels as an "Americanized Mexican."
The Immigration Judge denied asylum and withholding but granted CAT protection; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denials and reversed the CAT grant.
Key evidence: petitioner’s testimony and an expert who said cartels view Americanized Mexicans as sources of money and would target them for pecuniary gain.
The BIA found the expert’s assertions unsupported (e.g., no evidence petitioner’s Spanish is Anglicized) and that petitioner could change his appearance to avoid standing out.
The BIA concluded the feared harm was motivated by profit, not a protected ground, and that petitioner failed to show it was more likely than not he would be tortured with state acquiescence.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed under the substantial‑evidence standard and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Nexus to a particular social group for asylum/withholding	Valdivia‑Anguiano: cartels target "Americanized Mexicans" so harm is on account of a protected group	Government/BIA: cartels seek money; targeting is pecuniary, not on account of a protected ground	Denied — substantial evidence supports no nexus to a protected ground
Sufficiency of evidence to compel relief under substantial‑evidence review	Valdivia‑Anguiano: expert testimony and his fear demonstrate required persecution	Government/BIA: evidence does not compel finding of persecution; deferential review applies	Denied — evidence not such that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to find persecution
CAT: likelihood of torture and state participation/acquiescence	Valdivia‑Anguiano: likely to be recognized and tortured by cartels on return	Government/BIA: petitioner failed to prove more‑likely‑than‑not torture or state acquiescence	Denied — insufficient proof of likelihood of torture or police participation/acquiescence
Weight of expert testimony and avoidability of harm	Valdivia‑Anguiano: expert shows cartels would single him out as Americanized and target him	Government/BIA: expert claims unsupported; petitioner could alter appearance/language to avoid detection	Denied — BIA permissibly discounted expert and found petitioner could avoid standing out

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (substantial‑evidence review and nexus principles for asylum/withholding/CAT)
Barajas‑Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (nexus requirement between feared harm and protected ground)
Kamalthas v. I.N.S., 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for BIA factual findings)
Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2004) (criminal violence motivated by theft/randomness does not equal persecution)