NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCELINO CRUZ-VASQUEZ, No. 22-159 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-350-538 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 09, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and KATZMANN,*** Judge. Marcelino Cruz-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for withholding of removal, * 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 Gary S. Katzmann, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part. We review factual findings underlying the BIA’s denials of withholding of removal and CAT relief for “substantial evidence” and review questions of law de novo. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). To reverse the BIA under the substantial evidence standard, we must determine “‘that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it—and also compels the further conclusion’ that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)). Courts generally lack jurisdiction to review “‘any judgment regarding the granting of relief under . . . [8 U.S.C. §] 1229b,’ which governs, among other forms of relief, cancellation of an order of removal.” De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland, 49 F.4th 1282, 1285 (9th Cir. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)). But we retain jurisdiction over “colorable” constitutional claims or questions of law. Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009); see also De La Rosa-Rodriguez, 49 F.4th at 1287–88. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Cruz-Vasquez had “not established the requisite nexus between the claimed past harm or the feared future harm and a protected ground” for Cruz-Vasquez’s withholding-of- 2 22-159 removal claim. The IJ found that the evidence at most revealed a fear that he would be “an attractive victim for crime,” and the BIA concluded that Cruz- Vasquez had cited no evidence undermining the notion that he feared only “general violence and civil strife.” See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that random violence and gang activity bears no nexus to a protected ground). In his petition for review, Cruz-Vasquez fails to point to any evidence that compels the contrary conclusion. Rather, he argues that the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals