NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIO CASTRO-PEREZ, No. 19-73268 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-075-853 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 7, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: MILLER and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN,*** District Judge. Julio Castro-Perez, a Guatemalan citizen and member of the Quiche tribe, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) decision denying Castro-Perez’s claims for * 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 Stanley Allen Bastian, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We review factual findings for substantial evidence and may grant relief only if the record compels a contrary conclusion. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal. To obtain relief, Castro-Perez “must show a clear probability of future persecution,” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted), by showing it is “more likely than not” that he will experience persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Castro-Perez has not shown an individualized risk of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009). Castro-Perez does not argue he suffered past persecution. In addition, nothing in the record compels the conclusion that Castro- Perez will be singled out for persecution because he is Quiche. The BIA could also reasonably conclude that the murder of Castro-Perez’s father-in-law did not demonstrate a likelihood that Castro-Perez would experience persecution, especially when Castro-Perez admitted this murder did not concern him. 1 Castro-Perez does not challenge the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that his asylum application was untimely. We thus do not consider that claim. 2 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s further conclusion that Castro-Perez has not demonstrated a “systematic pattern or practice of persecution against the group to which he belongs in his home country.” Id. at 1060 (quotations omitted). The “mere economic disadvantage” that the Quiche experience does not compel the conclusion that Guatemala engages in the systematic persecution of that group. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060–62 (discussing standard for establishing a pattern or practice of persecution). Persecution is instead an “extreme concept” and “does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals