NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARLVINE NKEMASONG No. 21-431 ASONGAKAP, Agency No. A213-189-689 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 18, 2023 San Francisco, California Before: VANDYKE and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL,** District Judge. Petitioner Marlvine Nkemasong Asongakap seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the District of ** Kansas, sitting by designation. 1 Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. Where, as here, “the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration judge’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 702 (9th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation omitted). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). To overturn the agency’s factual findings, a petitioner must show that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (emphasis in original) (quotation omitted) First, Asongakap argues that the agency ignored portions of the record. Although it is true that the agency must consider the entire record, that “does not mean that the [agency] must individually identify and discuss every piece of evidence in the record.” Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 770 (9th Cir. 2022). Instead, this court presumes that the agency reviewed the entire record and issued its decisions accordingly. Id. at 771. That presumption can be overcome in some circumstances, but Asongakap has not overcome it here. Sufficient indicia show that the agency below considered the total record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990–91 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the agency “adequately considered” the record even though it “did not directly reference” certain evidence). 2 Second, the IJ denied asylum and withholding because it found that Asongakap failed to establish a nexus between any past or feared harm and a protected ground. The BIA affirmed on that same ground. For both claims, a petitioner must prove a causal nexus between one of his statutorily protected characteristics and either past harm or an objectively tenable fear of future harm. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021); Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019). Asongakap does not show that agency lacked substantial evidence for these determinations. The agency found that the Amba Boys harmed Asongakap for monetary reasons and that the harm lacked a nexus to a protected ground. Asongakap argues that the Amba Boys “could [have] …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals