NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICARDO A. LOPEZ-MARROQUIN, No. 18-72922 AKA Ricardo Lopez, Agency No. A044-286-222 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 3, 2020 Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District Judge. Ricardo Lopez-Marroquin, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the denial of his applications for relief from removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Yvette Kane, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. We review legal decisions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition in part.1 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal. Lopez-Marroquin failed to show that he would more likely than not face persecution based on his membership in two particular social groups: “gay Salvadoran men” and “Salvadoran males with schizoaffective disorder [who] exhibit erratic behavior.” While there is some evidence of discrimination and violence against homosexuals in El Salvador, the BIA reasonably found that the persecution was not sufficiently widespread such that Lopez-Marroquin would more likely than not suffer harm. The BIA also reasonably weighed Dr. Nickel’s testimony. Dr. Nickels did not opine on the likelihood that Lopez-Marroquin would be subjected to electroconvulsive therapy (“ECT”) without his consent, and testified that a psychiatrist informed him that the National Psychiatric Hospital (“NPH”) was implementing ECT protocols. Even assuming Lopez-Marroquin would be committed to the NPH, the evidence is insufficient to show that he will likely suffer persecution or be placed in the harsh forensic unit.2 1 Lopez-Marroquin also raises other issues, which we address in a concurrently filed opinion granting the petition in part. 2 We do not reach the merits of the asylum claim, which requires only a “reasonable possibility” of suffering persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). The IJ and the BIA found Lopez-Marroquin statutorily ineligible for asylum due to his 2 2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review this issue de novo because Lopez- Marroquin argues the IJ failed to adhere to an implementing regulation that requires consideration of all evidence bearing on the possibility of future torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). Although the IJ did not mention Lopez-Marroquin’s country-condition evidence in evaluating his CAT request, the IJ did discuss this evidence in evaluating his request for withholding of removal. We infer the agency considered and discounted this evidence for similar reasons in the CAT context.3 See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals