NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIANT STEVEN AREVALO-CHIVAS, No. 21-1235 Agency No. Petitioner, A212-997-345 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ, CLIFTON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge PAEZ. Briant Steven Arevalo-Chivas (Arevalo) petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. 1. Arevalo has not established that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review. The BIA correctly reviewed the IJ’s factual findings for clear error, and there is no indication in the record that the BIA improperly deferred to the IJ’s legal judgments. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i)–(ii). 2. The agency did not err in denying Arevalo’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. First, the agency was “not require[d] to discuss every piece of evidence” of past persecution and nexus to a protected ground. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006). As nothing in the record “indicates a failure to consider all the evidence,” the statement that the IJ considered the entire record is sufficient. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771–72 (9th Cir. 2011). Second, the agency’s conclusion that Arevalo did not establish past persecution is consistent with our precedent. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2009); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2006); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, the BIA did not err in avoiding the non-dispositive issue of whether Arevalo’s proposed particular social group, Salvadoran youth enrolled in college who are perceived to be gang affiliated, was cognizable. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“[A]gencies are not required to make findings on issues [which are] unnecessary to the results they reach.”). 3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Arevalo’s 2 CAT claim. The agency correctly concluded that Arevalo’s testimony and country conditions evidence did not establish a likelihood of future torture with the consent or acquiescence of public officials. See Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir. 2019); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). 4. For the reasons described above, the agency did not violate Arevalo’s due process rights. PETITION DENIED. 1 1 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals