Thomas Benoit v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS BENOIT, No. 17-70179
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-202-065
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Benoit, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Benoit failed
to establish the harm he experienced or fears in Haiti was or would be on account
of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft
or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
Thus, Benoit’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Benoit failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Haiti. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
As stated in the court’s March 27, 2017 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 17-70179