NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFONSO IGNACIO ZEPEDA LOPEZ, No. 18-72709 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-932-326 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** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD, OWENS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Alfonso Ignacio Zepeda Lopez (“Petitioner”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his withholding of removal claims under both the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and * 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 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a),2 and we deny the petition.3 First, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s withholding of removal claim. See Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018) (“We review denials of … withholding of removal … for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Specifically, the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination that Petitioner did not show he experienced any harm rising to the level of past persecution. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting the substantial evidence “standard of review is extremely deferential: administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Petitioner could not recall experiencing any past harm in 1 We do not address the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal or asylum because Petitioner did not raise those issues in his opening brief before this court. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). For similar reasons, we do not address the IJ’s competency finding or determination that Petitioner was deportable as charged. 2 See also Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1694 (2020) (determining that “§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a noncitizen’s factual challenges to a CAT order”). 3 The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. 2 Mexico. And his mother’s testimony of a single incident where Petitioner as a young child threatened to return her to her captors, does not, without more, establish that he was brainwashed or otherwise experienced any psychological trauma rising to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). As Petitioner has not established that any past harm rises to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals