NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE ANTONIO MILLAN- No. 14-73589 RODRIGUEZ, AKA Jorge Antonio Millan, 16-73411 AKA Jorge Millan, AKA Jorge Millan- 17-72591 Rodriguez, AKA Jorge A. Millan- Rodriguez, AKA Jorge Anton Millan- Rodriguez, Agency No. A073-906-847 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 14, 2019 Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions, Jorge Antonio Millan-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of three orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) dismissing his appeals from decisions denying his applications for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and two motions to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petitions for review. Reviewing the factual findings underlying the agency’s denial of asylum, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Millan-Rodriguez failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976–77 (9th Cir. 2009). Although Millan-Rodriguez presented evidence that three of his family members have been killed in Mexico, the record as a whole does not compel a conclusion contrary to that reached by the BIA regarding the objective reasonableness of his fear. See id. at 977–78. As the BIA recognized, Millan-Rodriguez “has numerous other relatives in Mexico who have not faced harm,” and “given that he did not know any of the fundamental facts of [his family members’] apparent kidnappings and killings, [he] did not establish that he was similarly situated and was at a similar risk.” See id. at 799; Mgoian v. INS, 184 F.3d 1029, 1036 (1999) (analyzing whether evidence of violence against family members had sufficient personal connection to applicant to justify well-founded fear of persecution). Because substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum, substantial evidence necessarily supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal as well. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (applicant who fails to 2 14-73589 show well-founded fear of future persecution under asylum standard “necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief on the basis that Millan-Rodriguez failed to show it was more likely than not that a government official in Mexico would torture him or consent or acquiesce to his torture. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011). We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010). It was not an abuse of discretion to deny as untimely Millan-Rodriguez’s motions to reopen his ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals