FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN CARLOS AGUILAR AVILA, Nos. 17-72071 18-70044 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-446-796 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and SIMON,*** District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. Petitioner Juan Carlos Aguilar Avila (Aguilar Avila), a native of Mexico and a citizen of Mexico and El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Aguilar Avila also challenges the BIA’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and special rule cancellation of removal for a battered spouse. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We DENY in part and DISMISS in part the petition for review. “We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted). However, in the absence of a colorable legal or constitutional claim, we have no jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that a non- citizen failed to establish “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to the non- citizen’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or a non- citizen lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as required for cancellation of removal or special cancellation of removal. Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 2 644 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Monroy v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2016). We review denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion and reverse only if the BIA “acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Mohammed v. Gonzalez, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). Because the BIA agreed with the reasoning of the Immigration Judge (IJ) and added its own analysis, we review both decisions. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014). 1. The BIA determined that Aguilar Avila’s fear of general gang violence was not sufficient to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Aguilar Avila lacked an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring “a showing by credible, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals