NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 10 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADIN ORLANDO RECINOS AGUILAR, No. 20-71542 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-720-273 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Immigration Judge’s Decision Submitted June 2, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Adin Orlando Recinos Aguilar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Guatemala and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We * 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). have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Recinos Aguilar failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Guatemala on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear of future persecution speculative). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Recinos Aguilar failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37 (no reasonable possibility of torture with state action). We reject as unsupported by the record Recinos Aguilar’s contentions that the IJ applied incorrect legal standards or otherwise erred in the analysis of his claims. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The supplemented motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry Nos. 1 2 20-71542 and 5) is otherwise denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 20-71542 20-71542 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Adin Recinos Aguilar v. Merrick Garland 10 June 2022 Agency Unpublished 8c051d5cfbfea48a480aa6e70c999aaa66b41556
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals