FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 8 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ESWIN NOY-OLLEY, AKA Eswin No. 19-72367 Nojollej, Agency No. A087-528-188 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 4, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Eswin Noy-Olley petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge (“IJ”) decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against * 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). Torture (“CAT”) and his alternative request for post-conclusion voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction to review the denial of CAT relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and our jurisdiction to review the denial of voluntary departure is limited to constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); 1229c(f); see also Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1176–77 (9th Cir. 2013). “We review the BIA’s fact-finding for substantial evidence and may grant a petition only if the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s conclusion.” Rayamajhi v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition in connection with the CAT claim and dismiss the remainder of the petition on jurisdictional grounds. I Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Noy-Olley had failed to meet his burden of showing that the Guatemalan government is “more likely than not” to “acquiesce” to any torture of Noy-Olley by the gang Mara Salvatrucha (“MS-13”). 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2); 1208.18(a)(1). Reyes-Reyes v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Acquiescence . . . is not limited to actual knowledge, or willful acceptance; the willful blindness of government officials suffices.” (quotation marks omitted)). 2 Noy-Olley produced no evidence of cooperation between Guatemalan officials and MS-13 (or any other gang) in his hometown or the nearby towns where MS-13 members assaulted him. To the contrary, Noy-Olley’s country conditions evidence contains only general references to official corruption at the national level that may hinder the effective policing of gangs in Guatemala, while also indicating that the Guatemalan government has made some progress in combating both corruption and gang violence. Notably, the only specific instance of corruption to which Noy-Olley testified did not relate to the policing of gangs, but concerned a traffic stop during which police officers pulled him over for a traffic infraction, asked him for money, and then let him go, without a citation, when he replied that he did not have any money. Because the foregoing evidence does not amount to “significant evidence establishing government complicity” in the criminal activity that “constitutes the basis” of Noy-Olley’s CAT claim, we must ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals