Joaquin Miranda Roman v. Jefferson Sessions, III ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOAQUIN MISAEL MIRANDA ROMAN, No. 15-70255
AKA Miranda Joaquin, AKA Chino
Miranda, AKA Joaquin Miranda, AKA Agency No. A092-381-019
Joaquin Misael Miranda, AKA Roman
Miranda, AKA Joaquin Mirandaroman,
AKA Joaquin Misael Roman, AKA MEMORANDUM*
Joaquinmisae Roman,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Joaquin Misael Miranda Roman, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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).
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
de novo questions of law. Morales-Alegria v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 1051, 1053 (9th
Cir. 2006). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not err in determining that Miranda Roman was statutorily
ineligible for asylum and cancellation of removal, where he was sentenced to more
than one year in prison for his forgery conviction under California Penal Code
§ 476. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(R), 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1229b(a)(3); Morales-
Alegria, 449 F.3d at 1059 (§ 476 is a categorical forgery offense). Miranda Roman
invites us to reconsider our decision in Morales-Alegria, but a three-judge panel
cannot overrule circuit precedent in the absence of an intervening decision from a
higher court or en banc decision of this court. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d
672, 677 (9th Cir. 2011).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Miranda
Roman failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be targeted for
persecution on account of his family relationship to his uncle, where it has been
more than 40 years since his uncle was threatened, and there is no evidence that
any other family members were targeted. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791
2 15-70255
(9th Cir. 2014) (“To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show a
“clear probability” of future persecution.”).
Miranda Roman does not raise, and therefore he waives, any challenge to the
agency’s determination that the harm he fears in Guatemala does not rise to the
level of persecution. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th
Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). Because
this determination is dispositive, we do not reach Miranda Roman’s contentions
regarding the cognizability of his proposed social group, “criminal deportees”. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are
not required to reach non-dispositive issues).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Miranda Roman’s CAT
claim, because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See
Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
The record does not support Miranda Roman’s contention that the IJ failed
to consider evidence of police involvement in unlawful killings. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-70255