Neri Virula-Chacon v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NERI HUMBERTO VIRULA-CHACON, No. 16-72657
AKA Neri Humberto Virula,
Agency No. A205-720-335
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Neri Humberto Virula-Chacon, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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
*
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).
jurisdiction under 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 review de novo questions of law. Id. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Virula-
Chacon failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador 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, Virula-Chacon’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
We do not consider Virula-Chacon’s claim based on his proposed particular
social group of “Salvadoran men who refuse to submit to police corruption and
gang violence” because the BIA did not decide the issue, see Santiago-Rodriguez
v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied
on by the BIA), and the BIA did not err in declining to consider the claim where it
was raised for the first time to the BIA, see Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293,
1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (BIA did not err in declining to consider proposed social
groups raised for the first time on appeal).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Virula-Chacon failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
2 16-72657
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-72657