NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED MAR 1 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ORLANDO EZEQUIEL LOPEZ- No. 19-72357 AGUILAR, Agency No. A215-676-386 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 8, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: HURWITZ and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and CORKER,** District Judge. Orlando Ezequiel Lopez-Aguilar (“Lopez”), a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal and denial of his motion to remand. Lopez appealed to the BIA after the Immigration * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Clifton L. Corker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation. Judge (“IJ”) denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Lopez claims that his right to due process was violated by an incorrect translation during the IJ hearing, and that the BIA abused its discretion when it denied his motion to remand. This Court has jurisdiction to review immigration proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We now deny the petition for review. 1. The standard of review for alleged due process violations in immigration proceedings is de novo. Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012). We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT protection for substantial evidence and will uphold the denial if it is supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). The substantial evidence standard is “highly deferential” and the petitioner must show that “the evidence not only supports . . . but compels reversal.” Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2. Lopez identifies as “mestizo,” one of mixed race. His father is indigenous, and his mother is Ladina, or of Spanish descent. At the hearing before the IJ, the word “mestizo” was mistranslated on one occasion to “indigenous.” Lopez argues that this inaccurate translation impacted how he answered the IJ’s 2 questions. The BIA found the error in translation harmless and that Lopez had not established that a better translation would have led to a different outcome in the proceedings. We agree. Despite the mistranslation, the IJ recognized that Lopez was claiming mixed ancestry and even directly questioned him about whether he was ever physically harmed because he was “half indigenous.” Lopez did not mention race in his response to that question, but instead focused on his height. When the IJ asked Lopez why the gangs targeted him, he listed many factors to explain their motivation, but race was not one of them. He attributed their targeting him to jealousy because of his soccer …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals