FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 13 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSWALDO CARDONA-SANCHEZ, No. 18-72505 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-853-291 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2019** Seattle, Washington Before: GRABER, BERZON, and HIGGINSON,*** Circuit Judges. Petitioner Oswaldo Cardona-Sanchez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the “Board” or “BIA”) final order denying his requests for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). *** The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. Petitioner also challenges the Board’s finding that he was not prejudiced as a result of any due process violation during proceedings before the immigration judge (“IJ”). We deny the petition. 1. As to Petitioner’s withholding claim, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner did not show that the Guatemalan government is unable or unwilling to control those whom Petitioner anticipates will persecute him. See Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (explaining criteria and standard of review); Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). “Even if we might have reached a conclusion different from that reached by the BIA, we may not reverse unless we determine that any reasonable factfinder would have been compelled to reach that conclusion.” Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007). The BIA and IJ considered both the documentary evidence and the specific facts of Petitioner’s case when evaluating the Guatemalan government’s willingness and ability to control the Sandoval family. The documentary evidence that Petitioner submitted reports that “rape and other sexual offenses” are serious problems in Guatemala. Other documentary evidence, however, including a U.S. State Department Report, shows that the Guatemalan government operates programs to “encourage victims and witnesses to report” sex crimes. See Sowe v. 2 Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir. 2008) (“U.S. Department of State country reports are the most appropriate and perhaps the best resource for information on political situations in foreign nations.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Reports show that several “complaints of sexual assault or rape against minors” were “successfully prosecuted.” Petitioner’s anecdotal evidence shows that police failed to apprehend Reuben Sandoval for kidnaping. But the evidence also reveals that the Guatemalan police “came to look for the young girl.” Although Reuben was not apprehended, evidence of “a general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.” Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals