Julio Garcia Sandoval v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO CESAR GARCIA SANDOVAL, No. 21-70772
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-150-319
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Julio Garcia Sandoval seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review both the BIA and IJ’s factual findings 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).
the substantial evidence standard, see Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir.
2020), and we review the agency’s legal determinations de novo, see Retuta v.
Holder, 591 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The agency was correct as a matter of law when it concluded that Ninth Circuit
precedent “squarely controlled and foreclosed” Garcia Sandoval’s assertion that a
defective Notice to Appear (“NTA”) divested the agency of jurisdiction and required
termination of the proceedings. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1161
(9th Cir. 2019) (jurisdiction vests with the defective NTA “so long as a notice of
hearing specifying [time and place] is later sent to the alien” (internal quotations
omitted)); see also Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 893–95 (9th Cir. 2020).
Although Garcia Sandoval initially received an NTA that failed to specify a time,
date, or location for his removal hearing, he later received a notice of hearing that
contained this information. Therefore, jurisdiction vested. Contrary to Garcia
Sandoval’s arguments, Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), and Pereira
v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), while concerning NTAs lacking in date or time,
did not squarely address jurisdiction.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Garcia Sandoval
“has not established that it is more likely than not that any group or individual in
Mexico will torture him or that the Mexican government would acquiesce to his
torture.” The record does not “compel” us to reverse the agency’s denial of CAT
2
protection. Garay Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1140 (9th Cir. 2016). Garcia
Sandoval has not suffered torture in the past in Mexico, see Alcaraz-Enriquez v.
Garland, 13 F.4th 848, 857 (9th Cir. 2021), and he has failed to show a particularized
likelihood of future torture with the acquiescence of public officials, see Arrey v.
Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019). Evidence of general government
ineffectiveness in preventing torture, or evidence of general violence or crime in a
petitioner’s country of origin, does not show that the petitioner, in particular, is likely
to be tortured with the acquiescence of the government. See B.R. v. Garland, 2022
WL 534349, at *12–14 (9th Cir. 2022).
Although, as Garcia Sandoval notes, country conditions reports can support
CAT relief if, “standing alone, [they] compel the conclusion that [petitioner] is more
likely than not to be tortured upon return,” Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1125
(9th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up), nothing in these reports indicates that someone standing
in Garcia Sandoval’s shoes—a person who believes he will be targeted because he
has lived in the United States—is likely to face torture. Garcia Sandoval’s testimony
that two of his nephews have worked as police and witnessed other officers
committing robbery is not compelling evidence of a likelihood that Garcia Sandoval
is at particular risk of torture with the acquiescence of public officials. Thus,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial.
PETITION DENIED.
3