Misael Villa Guzman v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MISAEL VILLA GUZMAN, No. 20-72205
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-317-346
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACE, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Misael Villa Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the summary affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of an order
by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA affirmed without an opinion, we review the IJ’s
decision. Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 919 (9th Cir. 2004). We review the IJ’s
factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo. Guerra v.
Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.1
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal
based on her finding that Villa Guzman failed to prove it is more likely than not
that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground if removed to
Mexico. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s
desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random
violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”); Delgado-Ortiz
v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that an applicant must
generally prove an individualized risk of persecution to establish eligibility for
withholding). Because the lack of a nexus to a protected ground is fatal to Villa
Guzman’s withholding claim, see Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th
Cir. 2016), we need not consider the IJ’s additional finding that Villa Guzman also
failed to establish that he is part of a cognizable particular social group.
2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Villa Guzman’s CAT claim.
The record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Villa
1
Villa Guzman does not challenge the agency’s denial of asylum. See
Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining
that failure to contest issue in opening brief results in waiver).
2
Guzman would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at
1152; Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that,
while country conditions evidence confirmed that torture occurred, it did not
compel a finding that petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3