NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 17 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEMETRIO MARTIN CHILEL, No. 19-73090 Petitioner, Agency No. A079-020-976 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 16, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and WU,*** District Judge. Demetrio Martin Chilel, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal * 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 George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo and factual determinations for substantial evidence. Amaya v. Garland, 15 F.4th 976, 986 (9th Cir. 2021). As to withholding of removal, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(3)(i) states: “In cases in which the applicant has not established past persecution, the applicant shall bear the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him or her to relocate, unless the persecutor is a government or is government-sponsored.” As to withholding of removal under CAT, the following provisions apply: (2) The burden of proof is on the applicant for withholding of removal under this paragraph to establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. .... (3) In assessing whether it is more likely than not that an applicant would be tortured in the proposed country of removal, all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall be considered, including, but not limited to: .... (ii) Evidence that the applicant could relocate to a part of the country of removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured . . . . 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)-(3). Chilel claims that, should he be removed to Guatemala, he will be 1 Chilel was under a reinstated removal order and could not apply for asylum; he could only seek withholding of removal or similar relief pursuant to CAT. See Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 951-55 (9th Cir. 2021). 2 persecuted by the family of the man (Ambrosio Chavez) who was killed by Chilel’s father in their village when Chilel (who is now 40 years old) was seven years old. The IJ denied relief to Chilel after concluding that: (1) Chilel’s testimony was credible; (2) he did not establish past persecution; (3) he had a well- founded fear of future persecution by members of Chavez’s family …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals