NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SALVADOR SANTIAGO-BARRALES, No. 17-70314 AKA Elias Santiago-Morales, 18-70782 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-991-913 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 16, 2022** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: KLEINFELD, D.M. FISHER,*** and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Salvador Santiago-Barrales, a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 2003 without authorization, petitions this Court for relief 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 D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order of removal and denial of his motion to reopen proceedings. We deny the petition in part and dismiss in part.1 Of Santiago-Barrales’s several grounds for relief raised on direct appeal, only his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture remains.2 We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo. Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2018). Santiago-Barrales asserts he is likely to face torture at the hands of authorities due to his former membership in a street gang known as Barrio Bajo. But the immigration judge and the BIA properly determined he had not shown an individualized likelihood of experiencing torture. Santiago-Barrales argues the BIA committed legal error by requiring him to identify a specific government official whom he feared. However, the BIA merely pointed to his inability to identify such an official as evidencing the weakness of his claim, so this was not an error of law. Following the BIA’s initial denial of his claims for relief, Santiago-Barrales moved to reopen on the basis of new material evidence. He was married during the pendency of proceedings, and he claims his U.S. citizen stepson will suffer 1 This court has jurisdiction to review final orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. But as discussed below, “no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). 2 Santiago-Barrales concedes the social group that formed the basis of his original withholding claim is not legally cognizable, and he does not dispute that his asylum claim is time-barred. 2 hardship if he is removed. A petitioner seeking to reopen based on new evidence must “establish a prima facie case for relief,” which entails “a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied.” Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Santiago-Barrales argues the BIA—in denying his motion—misapplied the law by requiring him to show “a reasonable …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals