Garfias-Chavez v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Ubaldo Garfias-Chavez, No. 21-1057
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-296-973
v.
MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 18, 2023**
Portland, Oregon
Before: RAWLINSON, BEA, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Ubaldo Garfias-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (Board) dismissal of his appeal
of the Immigration Judge’s order denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We review questions of law de novo, and factual findings for substantial
*
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).
evidence. See Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2019). “Under the
substantial evidence standard, we uphold the [Board’s] determination unless
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Garfias could
safely and reasonably relocate within Mexico. The Board properly assessed the
relocation factors. See Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th Cir. 2004). It
noted that there were places within Mexico that had lower levels of crime and it
was unlikely that the rival family or criminal enterprises would look for Garfias
outside of Michoacán. Additionally, the Board recognized that Garfias was
young, was in good health, and had significant resources to help with his
relocation. Although Garfias may disagree with how the Board weighed the
evidence, nothing in the record compels a contrary conclusion. See Singh, 914
F.3d at 658.
2. The Board concluded that Garfias did not meet his burden of establishing
that he would be tortured upon his return to Mexico. Garfias did not challenge
this conclusion; thus, he has forfeited this claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996). However, even if not forfeited, because
substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that he could relocate
within Mexico, the Board properly concluded that he is not eligible for CAT
relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c).
2 21-1057
PETITION DENIED.
3 21-1057