Alberto Pupo Diaz v. Merrick Garland


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 30 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ALBERTO PUPO DIAZ, No. 20-71321 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-564-247 v. ORDER MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. Before: BADE and LEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,* District Judge. The memorandum disposition filed on May 11, 2022, is amended as follows: On page 5, footnote 3, replace <granted. Diaz’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.> with <denied as moot.>. The Clerk shall file the amended memorandum disposition submitted with this Order. Respondent’s petition for panel rehearing, Dkt. 48, is DENIED as moot. No further petitions for rehearing may be filed. * The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERTO PUPO DIAZ, No. 20-71321 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-564-247 v. AMENDED MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 13, 2022 Pasadena, California Before: BADE and LEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,** District Judge. Alberto Pupo Diaz petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. 1 We review legal issues de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc), and we grant the petition in part, deny it in part, and remand. While in Cuba, Diaz worked at a government-owned coffee factory.1 He objected to working conditions at the factory, and in March 2018, he was accused of “insubordination and defamation,” by government officials. Months later, in October 2018, two Cuban police officers threatened Diaz near his home. In January 2019, two officers beat Diaz because of his workplace conduct and friendship with a member of the opposition party in Cuba. Diaz sought medical attention after the beating and missed one week of work due to back pain. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Diaz did not suffer past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzalez, 454 F.3d 1014, 1017–22 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that the record did not compel a finding of past persecution when a petitioner was detained for three days, struck on the back ten times with a rod, and interrogated in a room filled with instruments of torture); Prasad v. I.N.S., 47 F.3d 336, 339–40 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that the record did not compel the conclusion that a petitioner suffered past …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals