Sandoval Ramos v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Victor Javier Sandoval Ramos, No. 21-25
Petitioner, Agency No. A204-387-155
v.
MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Victor Javier Sandoval Ramos, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the denial of his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) denied petitioner’s application, and the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss the petition in part and
*
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).
deny the petition in part. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do
not recite them here.
We review the denial of asylum and withholding of removal for
substantial evidence, and “must uphold the agency determination unless the
evidence compels a contrary decision.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d
1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).
To the extent petitioner contends that the agency failed to consider his
age when evaluating whether he faced past persecution or has a well-founded
fear of future persecution, we lack jurisdiction to consider this challenge
because it was not exhausted before the agency. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1);
Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating that the
failure to exhaust a claim, absent an exception, deprives this court of
jurisdiction to consider the issue).
To the extent petitioner challenges the agency’s other grounds for
denying asylum and withholding of removal, the decisions are supported by
substantial evidence. See Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2020)
(“An applicant who fails to satisfy the lower standard for asylum necessarily
fails to satisfy the more demanding standard for withholding of removal.”).
Petitioner bears the burden of proving eligibility for asylum and must
demonstrate that he has suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of
future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion. See id. at 1141–42; 8 U.S.C.
2 21-25
§ 1101(a)(42). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
petitioner failed to show that he suffered past persecution because he did not
allege any incidents in which he was the victim of a threat or physical
mistreatment. It is not clear that petitioner witnessed, or was otherwise aware
of, cartel members’ threats to his mother. Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that petitioner did not establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution on account of his membership in his family because many
years have passed since petitioner’s mother left Mexico after being threatened,
and a number of petitioner’s family members continue to reside safely in
Mexico. The record does not compel reversal of the agency’s conclusion that it
was “speculative” to infer that petitioner’s cousin and aunt were murdered on
account of their membership in their family.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.1
1
Petitioner’s motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 3) is DENIED.
3 21-25