NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 8 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE DUENAS QUINTO, No. 21-919 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-236-922 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 07, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and KATZMANN,*** Judge. Jorge Duenas Quinto, a Peruvian native and citizen, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the * 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. Immigration and Nationality Act and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). “We review the BIA’s denials of asylum, 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.’” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Kamalyan v. Holder, 620 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010)). “In order to reverse the BIA, 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.” Id. (cleaned up). “Where the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration judge’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012)). 1. Duenas Quinto contends that the BIA and IJ erred in denying his asylum application after determining that the Shining Path did not persecute him on account of his political opinion or membership in a particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). He argues that he was persecuted on account of his imputed political opinion, or in the alternative, for remaining politically neutral when it was hazardous to do so. The BIA and IJ found that Duenas Quinto was not persecuted on account of his political opinion; he was threatened to obtain 2 information about his aunt and was subject to recruitment efforts for his intelligence. Duenas Quinto’s brief asserts only that he and his family opposed the Shining Path. He has not presented evidence of persecution based on this opposition or any other political stance. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483–84 (1992) (holding that petitioner must show persecution because of his political opinion, not just refusal to join criminal organization); Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals