NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATEO MATEO-SIMON, No. 21-205 Petitioner, Agency No. A213-082-392 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Mateo Mateo-Simon seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, * 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). 1 and we deny the petition. Our review is confined to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the BIA incorporates the IJ’s decision as its own. See Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016). Factual determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence and may be reversed if “the evidence in the record compels a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the BIA’s decision is incorrect.” Vinh Tan Nguyen v. Holder, 763 F.3d 1022, 1029 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1), the Attorney General may grant asylum to a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (citations omitted). To be eligible for withholding of removal, an applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that “his or her life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of removal on account of” a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). This requires showing “a clear probability—i.e., that it is more probable than not—that he would suffer future persecution.” Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003). Similarly, an applicant for CAT relief must show that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 931, 2 939 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, an applicant for CAT relief must show that the torture would be inflicted with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th Cir. 2008). Mateo-Simon argues that his credible testimony, the harm already perpetrated against him, and “horrific social conditions” in Guatemala constitute a compelling showing of past persecution and support a grant of asylum or withholding of removal. His arguments are not persuasive. First, Mateo-Simon has failed to show that the BIA erred in determining that his proposed particular social group —“young …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals