FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 17 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAUL DUARTE-VELA, Nos. 16-72395 & 18-70270 Petitioner, Agency No. A078-102-242 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 15, 2023** Seattle, Washington Before: FLETCHER and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and LIBURDI,*** District Judge. Raul Duarte-Vela petitions the court to review two Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) orders. The first is the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from the * 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 Michael T. Liburdi, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and removal relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second is the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petitions. Duarte-Vela is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without authorization in 1999, 2000, and 2004, and who now faces removal. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after removal proceedings began in 2014. He testified at his removal hearing that he had never been harmed or threatened in Mexico but that he feared a local gang would persecute him once it learned of his status as a repatriate from the United States. The IJ denied his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the INA and the CAT for three reasons. First, his asylum application was untimely. Second, he suffered no past persecution and failed to show a nexus between the future persecution he feared and his membership in any particular social group (PSG). Third, he was ineligible for CAT relief because he did not present any evidence that the Mexican government might torture him. Duarte-Vela administratively appealed the IJ decision, except for the time bar to asylum, the withholding of removal claim under the INA, and the domestic- violence-conviction bar to the cancellation of removal. The BIA adopted and 2 affirmed all parts of the IJ decision, incorporating its analysis. Even though Duarte- Vela had not preserved a challenge to the timeliness of his asylum application, the BIA confirmed it was untimely. It also confirmed he could not qualify for withholding of removal or CAT relief because he had not demonstrated (1) a well- founded fear of future persecution, (2) membership in a cognizable PSG, (3) nexus between harm he feared and any protected grounds, or (4) that the Mexican government would torture him or acquiesce to his torture. Duarte-Vela subsequently moved to reopen proceedings to introduce evidence that he newly qualified for an …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals