NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIO HUMBERTO RIVERA, No. 21-1336 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-303-009 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 21, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Mario Humberto Rivera, a citizen and national of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the denial of * 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). asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims for substantial evidence, and “must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary decision.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Rivera was competent to participate in immigration proceedings. See generally Matter of M-A- M, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474, 479–80 (B.I.A. 2011); Salgado v. Sessions, 889 F.3d 982, 987–89 (9th Cir. 2018). Despite his recent car crash and reported memory problems, the record indicates that Rivera was able to fully understand and follow the proceedings. And “even though safeguards are only required when an IJ concludes an applicant is incompetent,” Salgado, 889 F.3d at 988, the IJ ensured Rivera had the types of safeguards contemplated in M-A-M, such as access to counsel. M-A-M, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 481–83. Indeed, his counsel stated it was unnecessary to revisit Rivera’s direct examination, and the government stated that his lack of memory about specific dates did not matter, as no claims relied on precise date determinations. “[F]orgetting things and having bad memory” do not establish mental incompetency. Salgado, 889 F.3d at 988. 2. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of asylum and withholding of 2 removal. 1 See Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2020) (“An applicant who fails to satisfy the lower standard for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more demanding standard for withholding of removal.”). Both claims depend on a finding that Rivera faced past persecution, and that he was harmed or threatened with harm on account of a protected ground, such as being a member of a particular social group. See Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 833 (9th Cir. 2022). First, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rivera did not suffer harm rising to the level of past persecution. Rivera testified that in 1995, the MS-13 gang attempted to recruit him. Although the gang members did not say so, Rivera believes …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals