Mateo Simon v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATEO MATIAS SIMON, No. 20-71540
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-312-175
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Mateo Matias Simon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal
from an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We “review factual
findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo.” Guerra v. Barr,
974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). Under the substantial evidence standard, the
agency’s findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062,
1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted). We deny the petition
for review.
1. Matias Simon challenges the agency’s denial of his petitions for asylum and
withholding of removal based on its determination that he ailed to establish the
requisite nexus between any past or feared future harm and a protected ground.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Matias Simon’s claims were “solely
premised on his fear of gang recruitment and gang violence in Guatemala” and
agreed with the IJ that Matias Simon failed to meet “his burden of proof to
demonstrate [the requisite] nexus between any past or future persecution in
Guatemala and a protected ground.” Matias Simon does not meaningfully
challenge the BIA’s characterization of the basis for his claims or the BIA’s nexus
determination and, thus, has waived review of those issues. See Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not
supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
In any event, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
2
Matias Simon failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal.
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.”); see also Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that resistance to a gang’s
recruitment efforts, by itself, does not constitute a political opinion for purposes of
establishing a protected ground), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas
v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection.
The record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that
Matias Simon would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if
returned to Guatemala. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th
Cir. 2010) (evidence of generalized violence and crime in Mexico not particular to
petitioners did not satisfy the petitioners’ burden).
PETITION DENIED.
3