NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 24 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTORIANO SOLIS-REYES, No. 22-1024 Agency No. Petitioner, A099-823-961 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 20, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: SILER,*** WARDLAW, and M. Smith, Circuit Judges. Victoriano Solis-Reyes, a citizen of Mexico, petitions this court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of withholding of removal and Convention * 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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Against Torture (CAT) relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. We review legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Tomczyk v. Garland, 25 F.4th 638, 643 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Under the latter standard, “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Where, as here, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirms the Immigration Judge (IJ) and cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), “we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). 1. Solis-Reyes’s removal proceedings were validly commenced, as the “the failure of an NTA to include time and date information does not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction.” United States v. Bastide- Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc). 2. The BIA properly determined that Solis-Reyes did not suffer past persecution, and substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even assuming arguendo Solis-Reyes suffered past persecution, he is not likely to be persecuted after returning to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1) (past persecution triggers a 2 22-1024 rebuttable presumption of future persecution).1 Solis-Reyes concedes that he was never physically harmed in Mexico, but he fears returning to Mexico because of a long-ago familial land dispute in which his uncle shot at one of his brothers in 1989 and threatened his other brother around 2004. Solis-Reyes’s family relocated after the 1989 incident and experienced no further incidents involving the uncle—other than when Solis-Reyes’s brother returned to the disputed land around 2004 and confronted the uncle. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(i)(B) (reasonable internal location). Solis-Reyes’s family no longer owns the disputed land. See id. § 208.16(b)(1)(i)(A) (changed circumstances). And Solis-Reyes’s sister has lived for years in Mexico without any incident. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] petitioner’s fear of future persecution ‘is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members’ living in the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals