NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS CARDONA HARO, No. 21-648 Petitioner, Agency No. A092-034-371 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 7, 2023 Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Dissent by Judge FORREST. Carlos Cardona Haro petitions for review of an order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition. When, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), and expressly adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, we “look * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. through the BIA’s decision and treat the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision for the purposes of [the] appeal.”1 Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We review the IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence, meaning that the agency’s findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Salguero Sosa v. Garland, 55 F.4th 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020)); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Haro failed to show that he would be tortured in a mental health facility if removed to Mexico. “[T]o establish a likelihood of torture for purposes of the CAT, a petitioner must show that severe pain or suffering was specifically intended.” Villegas v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir. 2008); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5). The IJ found that, even if Haro became confined to a mental health facility, the conditions in that facility would not constitute torture within the meaning of the CAT because Haro “ha[d] presented insufficient evidence that anyone in that facility would specifically intend to harm him.” Although certainly suggestive of deplorable conditions, the evidence introduced by Haro does not compel a contrary conclusion—a showing required for reversal under our substantial 1 We therefore reject the Government’s contention that we may not review issues addressed by the IJ—and by the petitioner in this appeal—but not by the BIA. “If the BIA intends to constrict the scope of its opinion to apply to only one ground on which the IJ’s decision rested, the BIA can and should specifically state that it is so limiting its opinion.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). 2 21-648 evidence review. See Villegas, 523 F.3d at 989; Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1095. 2. Haro also claimed before the IJ and the BIA that he would likely be tortured at the hands of law enforcement or while in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals