NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS GUILLERMO-AVILAR, No. 18-72686 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-167-148 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 8, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW and BEA, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,*** District Judge. * 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, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Carlos Guillermo-Avilar,1 a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.2 We review de novo whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) violated due process. Chavez-Reyes v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1, 3 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Ramirez–Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 365, 377 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and will uphold those findings unless the record compels us to conclude differently. Rayamajhi v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2013)). We deny the petition. Guillermo-Avilar’s claim is primarily based on his gang tattoos, which he alleges will make him a target for torture in El Salvador. In his declaration in support of his application for relief, Guillermo-Avilar stated that, although he received MS- 13 gang tattoos for self-protection while he was incarcerated in the United States, he 1 Petitioner states that his real name is Jose Rafael Ortiz. Because the charging documents and Board of Immigration Appeals refer to him as Guillermo-Avilar, we do so here. 2 Section 1252 provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law . . . no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed” certain criminal offenses, but it preserves jurisdiction over “constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D). In Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020), the Supreme Court held that Sections 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a noncitizen's factual challenges to a CAT order. Id. at 1692–94. We therefore have jurisdiction to hear Guillermo-Avilar’s petition. 2 was not a gang member or participant in gang activities. Guillermo-Avilar stated that after his removal to El Salvador in 2004, Salvadorian police officers threatened to send a “death squad” to kill him, and that when he was deported from the United States to El Salvador in 2006 and again in 2008, police officers in El Salvador accused him of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals