NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VASIL VUKAJ, No. 21-688 Petitioner, Agency No. A070-449-869 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 and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE***, District Judge. Vasil Vukaj, a citizen of Albania, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the denial by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of his application for deferral of removal under * 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. the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. See Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012). Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision under Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), “we review the IJ’s order as if it were the BIA’s.” Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040–41 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc)). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo, and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020)). “To prevail under the substantial evidence standard, the petitioner ‘must show that the evidence not only supports, but compels the conclusion that these findings and decisions are erroneous.’” Id. (quoting Davila, 968 F.3d at 1141). 1. There is no indication that the agency failed to consider evidence relevant to its acquiescence analysis. When assessing a CAT claim, the agency must consider all relevant evidence. Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 639 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)). Almost all of the evidence that Vukaj argues the agency ignored was explicitly discussed in the IJ’s decision, which the BIA adopted. And while neither the IJ nor the BIA specifically mentioned evidence that the Albanian government may be motivated to underreport blood feud murders, the agency indicated that it considered competing evidence in the record regarding the prevalence of blood 2 21-688 feud murders in contemporary Albania. The agency need not “write an exegesis” on every piece of probative evidence in the record. Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)). 2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Vukaj did not show a likelihood that he would be tortured with the consent or …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals