NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 13 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GALINDO CASAS-AGUIRRE, AKA No. 20-71129 Galdino Casas-Aguirre, Agency No. A095-741-381 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 11, 2023** Pasadena, California

Before: WATFORD, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Galindo Casas-Aguirre, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the decision of an

immigration judge denying his application for withholding of removal. We deny

the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Casas-Aguirre

has not established a clear probability of future persecution. Casas-Aguirre’s aunt

previously informed the Mexican police that the Zetas had kidnapped Casas-

Aguirre’s cousin, which resulted in a confrontation between the police and the

Zetas. The Zetas then issued a threat to the same cousin, telling him that he should

not return to Jerez, where Casas-Aguirre’s family is from. Casas-Aguirre fears that

because of his family affiliation he will be targeted by the Zetas for retaliation if he

returns to Mexico. But his similarly situated family members who live in and visit

Jerez have not been harmed by the Zetas. The record therefore does not compel

the conclusion that Casas-Aguirre faces a clear probability of future persecution.

See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2014). Likewise, the

evidence submitted by Casas-Aguirre of generalized violence in Mexico does not

show that he would be singled out for persecution if he returns. See Don v.

Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744 (9th Cir. 2007).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2