NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YONATAN DE SALINAS FRANCO, No. 21-1056 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-740-702 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 18, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and KOH, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,*** District Judge. Yonatan de Jesus Salinas Franco (“Salinas Franco”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying * 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 Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). As the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence, Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019), meaning that “[t]o reverse the BIA, we must determine that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it—and also compels the further conclusion that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief,” Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal based on its conclusion that Salinas Franco failed to establish a nexus between any persecution and a protected ground. See Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that to meet the nexus requirement for asylum, “an applicant must show that the protected ground was ‘at least one central reason’ the applicant was persecuted” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i))); Singh v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019) (explaining that to meet the nexus requirement for withholding, an applicant must show that the protected ground “was ‘a reason’ for his persecution” (quoting Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017))). The record does not compel the conclusion that Salinas Franco established a nexus to his membership in his proposed particular social group of 2 “Salvadoran male who fears being murdered by violent gang members.” Rather, Salinas Franco testified that he was targeted by the police because he was believed to be a gang member, either due to his youth or being mistaken for his gang-member cousin. Salinas Franco fails to otherwise show that any harms he suffered were motivated because of his membership in his particular social group. Nor does the record compel the conclusion that Salinas Franco …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals