NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROOSEBELT QUEZADA No. 21-430 QUIROZ; IVAN ALBERTO QUEZADA Agency Nos. VELEZ; MARIA BLANCA VELEZ A206-911-225 SANCHEZ; MATTEO QUEZADA A206-911-694 VELEZ, A206-911-693 A206-911-695 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 28, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Roosebelt Quezada Quiroz, his wife, and two of their sons seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying their applications for * 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). asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We assume familiarity with the underlying facts and arguments in this appeal. “Whether a group constitutes a ‘particular social group’ … is a question of law we review de novo.” Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010). But whether an applicant has shown that his persecutor was or would be motivated by a protected ground—i.e., whether the “nexus” requirement has been satisfied—is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 739 (9th Cir. 2009). Under this deferential standard, factual findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Thus, to reverse the BIA’s finding under substantial evidence review, “we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it.” INS v. Elias- Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). First, the agency did not err in determining there was no past persecution. This court’s cases support the BIA’s holding that a one-time “detention, beating, and vague threat 6 months later from a caller who did not know where the respondent was located are insufficient to rise to the level of persecution.” See 1 “Petitioner” refers to Roosebelt Quezada-Quiroz, the lead petitioner in this consolidated proceeding who alone testified before the agency. 2 Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1063–64 (9th Cir. 2021); Gu v. Gonzalez, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019–21 (9th Cir. 2006). Second, Petitioner has not established any protected ground that would give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution. The BIA concluded that in his appeal before the agency Petitioner waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination that his proposed social group—“family members of Roosebelt Quezada Quiroz”—is not cognizable. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, No. 19-70964, 2023 WL 3606117, at *5 (9th Cir. May 23, 2023). Petitioner also failed to meaningfully challenge the BIA’s waiver conclusion in his opening brief, and therefore has forfeited …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals