FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 16 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBEN ALBERTO ORELLANA No. 20-71005 AQUINO, Agency No. A200-888-808 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: TASHIMA and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and RAYES,*** District Judge. * 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 Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Ruben Alberto Orellana Aquino, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming, without opinion, a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ). The IJ denied Aquino’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and ordered him removed to El Salvador. Aquino challenges the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. The IJ’s finding that the harm Aquino suffered does not rise to the level of persecution is supported by substantial evidence. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (stating that “[w]e review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence”); Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Where, as here, ‘the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency action.’” (quoting Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1188 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam))). The IJ found that it was a “close call,” but “[p]ersecution is ‘an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.’” Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028 (quoting Nagoulko v. INS, 333 1 Aquino does not challenge the IJ’s finding that he is ineligible for asylum because his application was untimely. 2 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003)). The evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to the IJ’s. See id. (stating that, under the substantial evidence standard, “we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion”). Aquino also challenges the IJ’s reliance on the lack of evidence to corroborate his claim that he suffered persecution and would be subject to persecution on account of his political opinion if removed to El Salvador. “Even when assuming credibility, the IJ or BIA may require additional, corroborating evidence.” Jie Shi Liu v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 834, 838 (9th Cir. 2018). The IJ specified the type of corroborating evidence she required, such as the police report and more detailed letters from his family to establish their involvement with the ARENA political party and Aquino’s relationship with Claudia …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals