Vincent Carrillo v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 2 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT PABLO CARRILLO, AKA No. 18-72811
Vincent Pablo Carrillo,
Agency No. A205-714-031
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 2, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Vincent Pablo Carrillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his
appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for
*
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).
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Carrillo
failed to show the required nexus between the harm he suffered in Guatemala and a
protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993
F.3d 743, 750–51 (9th Cir. 2021). To secure withholding of removal, Carrillo
must demonstrate his life would be threatened in his country of origin “because of .
. . membership in a particular social group.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also
Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2019). Carrillo asserts
membership in a particular social group of “family members who actively oppose
gang membership and tactics against them,” citing Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d
1077 (9th Cir. 2014). Carrillo argues that because he opposed gang members, “he
warrants protection.” As the BIA noted, Carrillo’s opposition to gangs was not as
visible as that in Pirir-Boc, and Carrillo fails to adequately demonstrate that his
proposed social group is cognizable. Because Carrillo fails to demonstrate the
harms he suffered were on account of his membership in a particular social group,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Carrillo has not
established eligibility for withholding of removal.
2. Similarly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that
Carrillo is ineligible for relief under CAT. Carrillo fails to offer anything more
2
than speculation that he will be tortured if he is returned to Guatemala, and thus
fails to meet his burden to establish relief under CAT. See, e.g., Nagoulko v. INS,
333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.
3