NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEAN THONY CHARLES, No. 18-73357 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-302-731 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 12, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: MURGUIA, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Jean Thony Charles petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) (collectively, “Agency”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief from removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). We grant the petition for review in part and deny in part. Charles must demonstrate that he is unwilling or unable to return to Haiti “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” for his asylum claim to succeed. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). The protected characteristic must be “a central reason” for past or feared harm, which is the “nexus” requirement. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). For withholding of removal, the protected ground must simply be “a reason” for the harm. Id. at 1146 (citation omitted). Charles seeks asylum and withholding of removal based on his imputed political opinion and membership in the proposed particular social groups (“PSG”) of “Haitians who are targeted for retaliation by gangs,” and “Haitians who are witnesses to Haitian gangs’ criminal activities.” Additionally, Charles seeks CAT protection because he claims he suffered torture with the acquiescence or willful blindness of the Haitian government. We review the BIA’s determinations that Charles has not established eligibility for asylum, withholding, or CAT protection for substantial evidence, and uphold the BIA’s factual findings “unless the 2 evidence compels a contrary result.” Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). As a threshold matter, the BIA’s failure to address the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not error. As an alternative finding, the IJ assumed credibility but denied Charles relief based on lack of nexus between his harm and any protected ground. The BIA likewise denied relief based on the IJ’s alternative finding of lack of nexus. Thus, the BIA did not need to reach the issue of credibility. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence supports the Agency’s finding that Charles has not shown a nexus to an imputed political opinion. Charles does not need to prove that “he . . . actually held a political opinion or acted in furtherance …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals