NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRUNO MORALES CABRERA, No. 22-531 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-671-646 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2023** Portland, Oregon Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Bruno Morales-Cabrera seeks reversal of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal and affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this appeal, we do not recite them here. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition. “Where the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law, rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). We review factual findings related to eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT for substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022) (CAT protection); Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021) (asylum and withholding of removal). 1. To be eligible for asylum a petitioner must show an inability to return to his home country, in part, due to “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 750–51 (9th Cir. 2021). To show a “well- founded fear of persecution” a petitioner must demonstrate at least “a ten- percent chance” that he will personally be persecuted, or individuals similarly situated to him will be persecuted. Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 809 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1029–30 (9th Cir. 2008)); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A). Here, the BIA properly determined that Petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of his membership in his family.” 2 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioner’s fear that he would be persecuted for previously paying an extortion demand for his nephew was speculative. The record demonstrates that Petitioner’s parents and ten siblings continue to reside in Mexico safely. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the BIA did not deny his asylum application under the one-year bar or because his family is not a cognizable particular social group. Because Petitioner fails to demonstrate he …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals