NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIKTORAS SUSTRETOVAS, No. 21-1078 Petitioner, Agency No. A055-049-372 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 10, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND, R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, CARDONE, *** District Judge Petitioner Viktoras Sustretovas petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and * 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 Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. Nationality Act (INA). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017), and we deny the petition.1 When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the Board, “except to the extent [that] the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2000). To demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate that a protected ground is at least “a reason” for the harm he will likely suffer. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359–60 (9th Cir. 2017). We review the agency’s findings of fact regarding the motivations of the applicant’s persecutors for substantial evidence. Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 739 (9th Cir. 2009). Under this standard, an agency’s findings of fact are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006)). We do not need to address the merits of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding 1 Sustretovas’s opening brief does not raise a claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Thus, this claim is waived on appeal, and we do not address it. Sung Kil Jang v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 1187, 1189 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015). Additionally, Sustretovas failed to appeal the IJ’s determination that he is ineligible for asylum due to his conviction for an aggravated felony offense; therefore, he failed to administratively exhaust the issue under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). 2 because the Board’s conclusion that, even crediting his testimony,2 Sustretovas failed to establish eligibility for relief on account of a protected ground is supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The lack of a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive of [petitioner’s] asylum and withholding of removal claims.”); Hose v. INS, 180 F.3d 992, 995 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals