Nelson Aparicio-Amaya v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON RAMIRO APARICIO-AMAYA, No. 18-72581
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-138-706
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Nelson Ramiro Aparicio-Amaya, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision
affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claims.
*
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).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Aparicio-Amaya,
even if credible, failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution. Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2020)
(explaining that asylum and withholding claims each require showing persecution
at the hands of the government or persecution by groups that the government is
unable or unwilling to control).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Aparicio-
Amaya failed to show that, if he is returned to El Salvador, Salvadoran government
officials will likely torture him or acquiesce in his torture. See Salguero Sosa v.
Garland, 55 F.4th 1213, 1221-22 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that CAT relief
requires that a noncitizen show that it is more likely than not that they will be
tortured by the government or through the government’s acquiescence if returned
to their home country).
Precedent forecloses Aparicio-Amaya’s argument that the IJ lacked
jurisdiction because the notice to appear lacked the time and place of Aparicio-
Amaya’s removal hearing. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187,
1190-92 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
Petition DENIED.
2