Case: 21-247, 04/18/2023, DktEntry: 29.1, Page 1 of 13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PABLO MANUEL MAGANA PEREZ, No. 21-247 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-591-013 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 7, 2023 San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and KATZMANN,** Judge. Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge KATZMANN. Petitioner Pablo Manuel Magana Perez seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed Magana Perez’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Gary S. Katzmann, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. Case: 21-247, 04/18/2023, DktEntry: 29.1, Page 2 of 13 applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017), and we deny the petition. The agency’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Castillo v. Barr, 980 F.3d 1278, 1283 (9th Cir. 2020). “[T]o reverse such a finding[,] we must find that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Wang, 861 F.3d at 1007 (cleaned up). We cannot reinterpret the record, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the agency. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 969 n.14 (9th Cir. 1998); Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000) (we cannot “substitute an analysis of which side in the factual dispute we find more persuasive” (quoting Marcu v. INS, 147 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 1998))). “Where the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration judge’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Magana Perez’s asylum and withholding claims. Magana Perez alleged that he was persecuted on account of his membership in the particular social group of “Mexican landowners who report crimes to the police.” The BIA affirmed the IJ’s conclusion that Magana Perez did not establish a nexus between his harm and his alleged particular social group because the goal of both Magana Perez’s past attackers and the new gang present in his hometown area was “to maintain the 2 Case: 21-247, 04/18/2023, DktEntry: 29.1, Page 3 of 13 criminal enterprise” rather than target Magana Perez for informing the police that the gang had approached him about giving up his family’s land. Substantial evidence supports this conclusion. The IJ concluded, based on the record, that Magana Perez and his family were not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals