Lucas Felipe v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
MAR 20 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jeremias Lucas Felipe, No. 21-636
Petitioner, Agency No. A213-212-387
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: LEE, BRESS, MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jeremias Lucas Felipe, native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order
upholding an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Lucas Felipe’s application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)
relief. We review de novo the BIA’s determinations on questions of law.
Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir. 2013). The BIA’s factual
*
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).
findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions,
850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). “Under this standard, we must
uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary
conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
The evidence does not compel the conclusion that Lucas Felipe’s race,
indigenous Mayan, was a reason for why Lucas Felipe was targeted. Lucas
Felipe’s assailant demanded money and did not mention Lucas Felipe’s race.
Importantly, Lucas Felipe testified that he did not know why he believed he was
targeted because of his race. Based on this evidence, the record does not
compel the conclusion that Lucas Felipe was targeted because of his race. See
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734,742 (9th Cir. 2009).
Moreover, although the record contains evidence that Guatemala has
problems with corruption and gang violence, the evidence does not compel the
conclusion that the government is unable or unwilling to control Lucas Felipe’s
assailant or gangs within the country. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[D]esire to be free from harassment by criminals
motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a
protected ground.”).
We similarly conclude that the record does not compel the conclusion
that Lucas Felipe has demonstrated a nexus to a protected ground sufficient to
entitle him to withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d
2 21-636
351, 359 (9th Cir. 2017). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that Lucas Felipe did not demonstrate that it is “more likely than
not” that he would “be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official if removed to h[is] native country.” Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d
1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 21-636