NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FELIPE E. ARAGON TRINIDAD, No. 18-71244 Petitioner, Agency No. A070-743-894 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 13, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and WU,*** District Judge. Felipe Aragon Trinidad, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions our Court for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing * 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. his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision while citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), and adding its own analysis, we review both the IJ and BIA decisions. Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny Aragon Trinidad’s petition for review. In his opening brief, Aragon Trinidad does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. We hold that he waived consideration of the adverse credibility determination. See Martinez–Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). But even absent waiver, we hold that substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of his application for withholding of removal. To qualify for withholding of removal, a noncitizen must establish by a “clear probability” that his “life or freedom would be threatened” upon return because of his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The totality of the circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination, see Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1136-37 2 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc), and Aragon Trinidad’s documentary evidence does not compel concluding that he is entitled to withholding, see Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 890-91, 894 (9th Cir. 2001). Aragon Trinidad contends that he has established a clear probability that his life would be threatened (1) on account of his membership in his family and also (2) on account of his anti-gang political opinion. The IJ rejected his claim of a nexus based upon his family relationship, and the IJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th. Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals