Santos Granadeno-Orquilla v. Merrick Garland

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 10 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANTOS EDWIN GRANADENO- No. 16-73928 ORQUILLA, AKA Edwin Granadeno, Agency No. A088-451-734 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 8, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: RAWLINSON, BADE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Santos Edwin Granadeno-Orquilla (Granadeno-Orquilla), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the denial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part. “We review de novo the [Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s)] determinations on questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact,” but “[w]e review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings.” Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). “Where, as here, the BIA adopts the [Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s)] decision while adding some of its own reasoning, we review both decisions.” Lopez- Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). 1. The basis for Granadeno-Orquilla’s application for withholding of removal was being “shove[d],” “insult[ed],” and receiving a death threat from the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang after he refused to join the gang. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that any harm Granadeno- Orquilla experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. We have held that “[p]ersecution . . . is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotations omitted) (concluding that the record did not compel a finding of past persecution when the petitioner “never suffered any significant physical violence”). 2 2. Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Granadeno- Orquilla failed to establish a nexus between any past or feared harm and membership in his proposed social groups. Granadeno-Orquilla proposed the social group of “[m]ember of a family of known former military.” However, when the IJ inquired whether the gang members knew of his father’s military service, Granadeno-Orquilla responded that he “believe[d] they knew because everyone knows that there.” Granadeno- Orquilla’s “belief” did not establish the requisite connection to a protected ground. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 657 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that an applicant must “introduce some evidence of the persecutors’ motive, direct or circumstantial”) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in the original). Granadeno-Orquilla’s fear of generalized violence is insufficient to meet the nexus requirement. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended. …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals