NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIO C. FLORES, AKA Crazy Diablo, No. 19-73033 AKA Julio Flores, AKA Little Diablo Flores, Agency No. A070-715-159 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 5, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: SILER,*** HURWITZ, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Julio Cesar Flores, Jr., a native and citizen of El Salvador and lawful * 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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. permanent resident of the United States, was placed in removal proceedings after a 2018 conviction. Flores conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied asylum and withholding but granted CAT protection, finding it more likely than not that Flores would be tortured if removed because of his tattoos. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which reversed, finding the IJ’s factual findings “speculative and therefore clearly erroneous.” Flores has petitioned for review of the BIA decision. We deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part. 1. Flores’s opening brief does not directly challenge the BIA’s dispositive holding that he had not established that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured with government participation or acquiescence if returned to El Salvador. Nor does Flores challenge the BIA’s determination that the IJ’s factual finding to the contrary was clearly erroneous. Rather, in language that appears to have been lifted from another brief, Flores argues that the BIA erred in a relocation decision. The BIA made no such decision. Thus, we could find that Flores effectively has forfeited any challenge to the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). But, we exercise our discretion to address this issue “because the government briefed it, and thus suffers no prejudice from 2 [Flores’s] failure to properly raise the issue.” See Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004). On the merits, the record does not compel the conclusion that it was more likely than not that Flores would be tortured with government participation or acquiescence if returned to El Salvador. See Medina-Rodriguez v. Barr, 979 F.3d 738, 744, 749-50 (9th Cir. 2020); Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 915 (9th Cir. 2012); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Flores claims his tattoos will make him a target of gangs, vigilantes, and police, that this will result in torture, and that the government will …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals