FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 8 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS EMILIO RODRIGUEZ No. 20-73815 JUAREZ, Agency No. A209-127-654 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: BYBEE, CALLAHAN, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Carlos Emilio Rodriguez Juarez is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States without a valid entry document on August 15, 2016. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Rodriguez Juarez’s applications for asylum, withholding of * 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). removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner argues for relief on two grounds.1 First, petitioner contends that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was clearly erroneous because petitioner subsequently recanted his inconsistent testimony. Second, petitioner asserts that the IJ erred in finding that he was ineligible for CAT protection because he had failed to establish that the government would acquiesce to his torture or that he was unable to relocate and avoid harm.2 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny his petition. Where the BIA affirms the IJ while citing its decision in Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (B.I.A. 1994), and adding its own analysis, we review both decisions together and review the agency’s factual findings for substantial 1 Petitioner does not contest the agency’s findings with respect to the lack of a nexus between his alleged persecution and a particular social group—failing in his briefing before this court to mention either of his proposed social groups of “young men who resist police corruption” or “family”—and any challenge to them is forfeited. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e generally will not take up arguments not raised in an alien’s opening brief before this court.”). Accordingly, he fails to meet his burden of proof for asylum and withholding. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016). 2 Although petitioner attempts to raise this issue before this court, the BIA specifically declined to address these findings by the IJ and instead predicated denial of petitioner’s CAT claim solely on the adverse credibility determination. 2 evidence. See Bondarenko v. Holder, 733 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2013); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). Under this standard, we must uphold the findings unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). When applying this standard of review, we may not re-weigh the evidence, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018–19 (9th …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals