NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ACHA ROLAND TECHE, No. 21-56 Petitioner, Agency No. A213-187-435 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND; U.S. Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: CALLAHAN and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,*** District Judge. Acha Roland Teche, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from a * 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 Susan R. Bolton, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. decision by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny in part and grant in part. 1. Teche challenges the denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims based on his material support for a terrorist organization. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I)-(III), 1158(b)(2)(A)(v). Unless a petitioner raises constitutional or legal questions, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of asylum and withholding of removal under the material support bar. Rayamajhi v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(D)). Teche does not contest the BIA’s finding that the Cameroonian Anglophone separatist group is a terrorist organization. Instead, he argues that he did not “know” whether the men to whom he gave money were in fact Anglophone separatists. Under our precedent, we retain jurisdiction to review whether a petitioner reasonably did not know he was supporting terrorism. Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). We agree with the application of the material support bar here. Teche testified he gave 10,000 francs to Anglophone separatists who pressured him to contribute money for the “struggle” of them all. He also testified that he had earlier marched with the separatists in a political demonstration. While Teche speculated that the men he gave money to may have been merely posing as Anglophone separatists, the IJ and BIA “were not compelled to accept [his] 2 explanation.” Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021). Indeed, Teche points to no other evidence that non-separatist extortionists pose as Anglophone separatists. Thus, the BIA appropriately held that Teche is not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. 2. We remand Teche’s CAT claim for reconsideration. “To establish entitlement to protection under CAT, a petitioner must show that ‘it is more likely than not he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.’” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 834 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 C.F.R. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals