Juan Alfaro-Alvarenga v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 9 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN MIGUEL ALFARO- No. 20-72545
ALVARENGA,
Agency No. A208-154-470
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON, RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District
Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle
District of Florida, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Juan Miguel Alfaro-Alvarenga (Petitioner), a native and citizen
of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition.
“We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims
for substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th
Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency
determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. (citation
omitted).
Petitioner argues that MS-13 gang members targeted him because of his
religious beliefs, and because he was seen “as a threat to their recruitment efforts
because the church’s activities are so antithetical to the gangs [sic] ideologies
that youths who join the church group would be discouraged from joining the
gang.” However, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that no
harm to Petitioner was inflicted on account of his religion and that gang
members made no reference to his religious activities. Although Petitioner
testified that his church group would see some “gang members” when recruiting
2
youth in the community, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Petitioner failed to establish that the gang members who targeted him connected
him to the church youth group. Indeed, Petitioner stated in his Opening Brief
that it is “unknown exactly why the MS-13 gang members beat [him].” Thus,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner established
no nexus between the harm suffered and his religious activities. See Sinha v.
Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1018 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended (observing that
substantial evidence supports finding of no nexus where “the record contains no
evidence suggesting that petitioners’ past experiences or future fear bears any
relationship to their religion”).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s claims
predicated on political beliefs. Petitioner “was actively recruiting young men to
join his youth group” and “voiced opposition” to the gang, in that he “didn’t
agree with what they were doing.” This evidence does not establish that the
harm to Petitioner was inflicted on account of a political opinion or that the gang
perceived Petitioner as a political threat. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542
F.3d 738, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by
Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
Nor does it compel a finding that Petitioner possessed a specific political or
3
ideological opposition to the gang’s ideals that the gang members perceived, and
which was a reason motivating their harm of Petitioner. See id. at 747 (“No
evidence suggests that the gang held any sort of belief system that they
perceived [Petitioner] to oppose. Without evidence of an actual political opinion
or motive in [Petitioner’s] or the gang’s actions, his claim fails.”).
Finally, as Petitioner failed to address the denial of CAT relief in his
Opening Brief, that claim is waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION DENIED.
4