FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 11 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD FRANK AQUINO-MEJICO, No. 18-71410 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-933-500 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 11, 2020** Portland, Oregon Before: BYBEE and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge. Petitioner Ronald Aquino-Mejico, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision (1) affirming 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 Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Aquino’s application for withholding of removal (withholding), and (2) denying Aquino’s motion to reopen proceedings. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ decision and also adds its own reasoning, we review the decision of the BIA and those parts of the IJ’s decision upon which it relies.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027–28 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). We review denials of withholding “for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). A denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion and may only be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1. To qualify for withholding, a petitioner must show that “it is more likely than not that the petitioner would be subject to persecution on account of [a] protected ground[]” if removed to his country of origin. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). A petitioner can carry this burden in two ways. First, he can show that he suffered actual past 2 persecution on account of a protected ground, which leads to a rebuttable presumption that he will suffer persecution if returned to his country of origin. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1). Second, he can show that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution that “is both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” Lolong, 484 F.3d at 1178. Further, to sustain a claim for withholding, a petitioner must show that his alleged persecutor is “a government official or individuals the government is unable or unwilling to control.” Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals