NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 3 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTONIO SANTOS MOO MIS, AKA No. 19-70069 Santos Antonio Moo Mis, Agency No. A098-269-704 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 1, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: SILER,*** RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Antonio Moo Mis, a 37-year-old Mexican native, was ordered removed by an immigration judge (“IJ”) under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Moo Mis conceded * 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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. removability but sought relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The IJ denied each claim, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Moo Mis timely petitioned our court for review. He challenges the BIA’s decision only as to his withholding and CAT claims, not his asylum claim. For the reasons explained below, we deny his petition. 1. Moo Mis claims eligibility for withholding of removal based on three sources of alleged persecution: his family, gang members, and a third group of unknown assailants who are prejudiced against Americanized Mexicans. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion as to each ground. First, even if the domestic abuse that Moo Mis experienced as a child constituted past persecution, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that a “fundamental change in circumstances” rebuts the presumption that he will face similar abuse if he returns to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A). As the BIA noted, Moo Mis—who was 37-years old at the time of his hearing—had not been beaten by his mother or stepdad since he was 13. Moo Mis offers no explanation or evidence to explain why his childhood domestic abuse would reoccur if he returns to Mexico as a man in his late 30s. Instead, he merely argues withholding claims should be analyzed from the perspective of the child and take into account the victim’s age at the time of the persecution. But that is only true 2 with respect to past persecution. See, e.g., Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]njuries to a family must be considered in an asylum case where the events that form the basis of the past persecution claim were perceived when the petitioner was a child.”) (emphasis added). To evaluate changed circumstances, the agencies need not blind themselves to the inherent differences between a 13-year-old boy and a 37-year-old man.1 Second, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Moo Mis has not shown persecution on account of a political opinion based ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals