NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 9 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIGUEL ANGEL GONGORA- No. 20-70709 CASTANEDA, AKA Miguel Congora- Castalleda, AKA Miguel Jimenez-Jimenez, Agency No. A201-237-532 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 21, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and WALLACE and BEA, Circuit Judges. Mr. Gongora-Castaneda (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision to dismiss his appeal and affirm an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. BIA’s decision to deny his motion to reopen. Petitioner contends that the IJ lacked jurisdiction because the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) he received omitted the address of the immigration court (“IC”) at which his hearing was to take place; that the BIA erred in denying Petitioner’s claims to asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT; and that the BIA erred in denying his motion to remand for ineffectiveness of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.1 1. Petitioner’s claim that, because the NTA omitted the IC’s address, the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his case, is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 894–95 (9th Cir. 2020). Petitioner had actual knowledge of the address through follow-up notices and appeared at the hearing. 2. Petitioner, a homosexual man, “fears he would be harmed due to his sexual orientation in Mexico.” The BIA found that Petitioner was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because the Government rebutted Petitioner’s presumption of future persecution (based on past persecution) with evidence that Petitioner could relocate safely within Mexico. Petitioner contends this finding is “not supported by the record,” and highlights evidence tending to show in general that homosexual persons have experienced threats and violence in Mexico; Mexican authorities have not adequately prosecuted some hate crimes against 1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not repeat them here, except where necessary to provide context for our ruling. 2 homosexual persons; and Mexican police have mistreated homosexual persons. But, much of the evidence Petitioner cites describes general conditions across Mexico. Moreover, the record contains some evidence supportive of a finding that Petitioner could be safe in some parts of Mexico. And, importantly, Petitioner himself conceded that he “d[id]n’t know” “why [he] couldn’t go live safely in an area like Mexico City or somewhere else.” 2 Based on this record, we cannot say that “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude” that Petitioner could not relocate safely within Mexico. B.R. v. Garland, 4 F.4th 783, 790 (9th Cir. 2021). Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings that Petitioner is ineligible for asylum and withholding …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals