Milton Vasquez-Ajxup v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 14 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILTON VASQUEZ-AJXUP, AKA No. 19-72588
Alsvaldo Hernandez, AKA Oswaldo
Hernandez-Vasquez, AKA Milton Agency No. A087-535-589
Vasquez Axjup,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 8, 2023**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Milton Vasquez-Ajxup, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against
*
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 (CAT). An immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application, and the
Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here.
We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal
conclusions de novo. Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). The
agency determined that Petitioner did not establish that it is more likely than not
that he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a government official
if he were removed to Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2), 208.17(a),
208.18(a). Substantial evidence supports that determination.
Although Petitioner focuses on whether the harm he experienced in
Guatemala rose to the level of torture, the agency properly considered “all
evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3). For
the most part, the harm of which Petitioner complains was perpetrated by people he
could not identify. Even assuming that Petitioner’s past treatment by police in
Guatemala rose to the level of torture, the record does not compel the conclusion
that it is “more likely than not,” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2), that Petitioner will be
tortured “by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
2
official or other person acting in an official capacity” if Petitioner is removed to
Guatemala, 8 C.F.R.§ 208.18(a)(1).
PETITION DENIED.
3