FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOAQUIN ALVARADO-ALVARADO, Nos. 16-73315 AKA Joaquin Alvarado, 17-71138 Petitioner, Agency No. A072-009-938 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 16, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER, GOULD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Joaquin Alvarado-Alvarado (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration * 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). Appeals (“BIA”). In the first, the BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). In the second, the BIA denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen based on eligibility for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review ‘denials of asylum [and] withholding of removal . . . for substantial evidence.’” Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017)). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1252–53 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. We have no jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision denying Petitioner’s application for special rule cancellation of removal under NACARA. “[The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)] expressly precludes federal courts from reviewing the agency’s factual determination that an immigrant is ineligible for ABC benefits or special rule cancellation of removal under NACARA § 203.” Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1202, 2 1213 (9th Cir. 2011).1 “We do retain jurisdiction to review colorable constitutional claims and questions of law raised in a petition for review of a discretionary denial of NACARA cancellation.” Monroy v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2016). Petitioner has not raised any colorable constitutional claims or questions of law. Instead, Petitioner challenges the agency’s factual determinations about his eligibility for NACARA relief, including whether he entered the United States prior to September 19, 1990. We therefore have no jurisdiction over this claim. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Petitioner’s application for asylum. Petitioner failed to show that he suffered past persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground. Petitioner alleged that guerrillas threatened and shot at him when he was an active member of the Salvadoran army. However, “persecution resulting from membership in the police or military is insufficient, by itself, to establish persecution on account of membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals