FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 5 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELEODORO CARRILLO-CARRILLO, No. 18-70834 AKA Eliodoro Carrillo-Carrillo, Agency No. A206-914-734 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 30, 2020** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Eleodoro Carrillo-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection * 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). under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We may review only the grounds expressly relied upon by the BIA. Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016). “Where the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration judge’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012). We review the factual findings of the immigration judge (IJ) and BIA for substantial evidence and all legal conclusions de novo. Villavicencio v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 658, 663–64 (9th Cir. 2018). 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s rejection of Petitioner’s claims of future persecution based on past persecution as a “Guatemalan child[] in a domestic relationship who [is] unable to leave.” The BIA did not err in finding that the Department of Homeland Security sufficiently rebutted Petitioner’s fear of persecution because Petitioner is no longer a child dependent on his abusive step-grandmother and does not lack financial resources. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A) (presumption of well-founded fear of future persecution rebutted by showing of a “fundamental change in circumstances”). Petitioner was nineteen years old at the time of his March 1, 2017, hearing before the IJ, and he had lived independently in Mexico for eighteen months before entering the United States. Thus, the BIA’s determination that 2 Petitioner lacked a well-founded fear of future abuse because he is now an adult who can live independently is supported by the record. 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his fear of gang recruitment in Guatemala. Generalized fear of gang violence or criminal activity is insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746–47 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding petitioner had not established past persecution based on anti-gang political opinions because he failed to present evidence that he was ideologically opposed and evidence showed he was instead victimized for economic and personal reasons), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals