NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FULGENCIO ESAU CASTILLO No. 17-70802 GUARDARDO, Agency No. A095-811-433 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 20, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: LEE and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge. Fulgencio Esau Castillo Guardardo (“Guardardo”), a native and citizen of El * 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 Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. We review questions of law de novo. Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2010). We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020). Under this standard, we must uphold the agency’s determination unless any reasonable trier of fact “‘would be compelled to conclude to the contrary’ based on the evidence in the record.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014)). The agency found that the record did not reflect that El Salvador police or government authorities were unwilling or unable to help Guardardo and dismissed his 1 Guardardo did not file an application for asylum because he missed the one- year filing deadline. Although he did file an application for CAT relief (which the agency denied, he waived on appeal any arguments in support of CAT relief by failing to raise them. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an applicant must “specifically and distinctly” argue and raise his arguments or those arguments are waived (quotation omitted)). Guardardo acknowledges that the only relief he seeks is that “this court reverse the finding of the BIA that [he] has not met his burden of proving his eligibility for withholding of removal based on his past persecution at the hands of his father.” -2- appeal.2 This finding is supported by substantial evidence. To qualify for withholding of removal, Guardardo must show, inter alia, that the Salvadoran authorities cannot protect him. Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]o qualify an alien for asylum [or withholding of removal], the persecution must have been ‘committed by the government’ or, as relevant here, ‘by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.’” (quotation omitted)). Although Guardardo points …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals