NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN ADONAY CHICAS CLAROS, No. 19-71571 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-270-678 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 26, 2020** Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Kevin Adonay Chicas Claros, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252. We review for substantial * 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). evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand. Chicas Claros’ request to remand and terminate proceedings for lack of jurisdiction is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 894-95 (9th Cir. 2020) (notice to appear need not include time, date, or place of initial hearing to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court). The agency found that Chicas Claros failed to establish past harm rising to the level of persecution. Substantial evidence does not support that determination. See Ruano v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2002) (threats coupled with close confrontation by armed men rose to the level of persecution). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Chicas Claros’ asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Chicas Claros failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 19-71571 Chicas Claros’ removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA. The government must bear the costs for this petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED. 3 19-71571 19-71571 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Kevin Chicas Claros v. William Barr 3 November 2020 Agency Unpublished 50da34abb614e3b08725c0b89ff6121efbb76e31
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals