NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO GONZALEZ-HERNANDEZ, No. 20-71701 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-718-978 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 16, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, PARKER,*** and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Sergio Gonzalez Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from * 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 Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction to review Gonzalez’s petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA issues its own decision, but relies in part on the IJ’s decision, we review the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s decision to the extent adopted. See Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Alaelua v. INS, 45 F.3d 1379, 1382-83 (9th Cir. 1995)). We review only the reasons the BIA gave in support of its decision, and we review those reasons for “substantial evidence.” Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019); Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2019). Under that standard, we must find the BIA’s reasons sufficient unless, after reviewing the record as a whole, “any reasonable adjudicator” would have been “compelled” to reach a different conclusion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Garland v. Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669, 1679 (2021). 1. The BIA concluded that Gonzalez’s asylum application was untimely as he did not file it within a year of his arrival in the United States in 2000, and instead waited fifteen years. Because Gonzalez failed to raise this finding in his petition for review of the BIA decision, he has forfeited any challenge to the untimeliness finding. 2. The BIA correctly determined that the IJ applied the appropriate legal 2 standard in determining whether Gonzalez qualified for withholding of removal. To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show a “clear probability” of future persecution. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984); see also Alvarez–Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003). Although the IJ initially referenced a “definite” risk standard, he ultimately applied the correct standard, reciting it verbatim while evaluating the evidence and concluding that “there is no clear probability of persecution in this case.” 3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Gonzalez did not qualify for withholding of removal because although he received threats in the past, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals