NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIRBEK AKYEV, No. 17-70356 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-561-807 v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting MEMORANDUM* Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 10, 2018 Seattle, Washington Before: BLACK,** PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Mirbek Akyev, a native and citizen of Kyrgyzstan, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Susan H. Black, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation. under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings underlying its denial of relief. Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir. 2013). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because even if Akyev had shown a nexus to a protected ground, the record does not compel a finding that Akyev had a well-founded fear of future persecution or that he would more likely than not be harmed if returned to Kyrgyzstan. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(2), 1208.16(b)(2); Vitug, 723 F.3d at 1062 (explaining to reverse the BIA’s finding under substantial evidence review, “we must find that the evidence not only supports [reversal], but compels it” (quotations omitted)). Finally, the record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Akyev will be tortured at the instigation of, or with the acquiescence of, the government if returned to Kyrgyzstan. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing standard for CAT relief). Accordingly, we deny Akyev’s petition for review. PETITION DENIED. 2 FILED Akyev v. Whitaker, No. 17-70356 NOV 27 2018 PAEZ, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS I agree with my colleagues that the Board of Immigration Appeals properly denied Akyev’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to the extent that they were based on political opinion. I also agree that there is no merit to Akyev’s CAT claim. I would, however, grant the petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings on Akyev’s family social group claim. “We think it goes without saying that IJs and the BIA are not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.” See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). Rather, IJs and the BIA must address the arguments raised by a petitioner as well as indicate how they analyzed these arguments to reach their conclusions. Id. When the BIA “fail[s] to engage in a substantive analysis of its decision, we have ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals