NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 11 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS MANUEL CHAVEZ LOBATON, No. 15-73902 AKA Carlos Manuel Chavez-Lobatos, Agency No. A088-882-773 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 9, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: HURWITZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District Judge. Carlos Manuel Chavez Lobaton, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing an * 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 Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 1. “We review denials of … withholding of removal[] and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To grant a petition for review under this standard, “we must find that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it.”2 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). 2. Here, the record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the agency’s. Chavez claims that he suffered persecution in 1999, when he was kidnapped twice by criminals and beaten after he refused to provide information about the monetary transactions and management at the hotel where he worked. Three years after the 1 We lack jurisdiction to consider any arguments raised in support of an asylum claim because Chavez did not exhaust that claim before the agency. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Additionally, Chavez’s petition for review only seeks review of the agency’s denial of his withholding and CAT claims. 2 “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). 2 kidnappings, Chavez left Peru and entered the United States under a visa that he overstayed without authorization. a. Regarding his withholding of removal claim, Chavez bore the burden of showing that, if removed to Peru, he would more likely than not suffer persecution on account of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); Chen v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 611, 617 (9th Cir. 2004). Chavez contends that he was persecuted in Peru due to his political opinion as a person who “refus[ed] to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals