RUDY ANDRADES-VILLALTA V. MERRICK GARLAND ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUDY GEOVANNI ANDRADES- No. 19-70268
VILLALTA, AKA Rudy Geovanny
Andrades-Villalta, Agency No. A205-646-360
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an
Immigration Judge’s Decision
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Rudy Geovanni Andrades-Villalta, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under
8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or
*
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).
torture in El Salvador and is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative
reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch,
828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
We do not disturb the determination that Andrades-Villalta failed to
establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s past experiences,
including two beatings, even considered cumulatively, did not compel a finding of
past persecution); see also Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence review
applies, where result would be the same under either standard).
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Andrades-Villalta failed
to show a reasonable possibility that the harm he fears would be on account of a
protected ground. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2018)
(no basis for withholding of removal where petitioner did not show a nexus to a
protected ground). We lack jurisdiction to consider the protected grounds
Andrades-Villalta raises for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider
claims not raised to agency).
2 19-70268
Substantial evidence also supports the determination that Andrades-Villalta
failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Andrade-Garcia,
828 F.3d at 836-37 (petitioner failed to demonstrate government acquiescence
sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of future torture).
We do not consider the materials Andrades-Villalta references in his
opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-70268