Alvarado-Raymundo v. Garland ( 2023 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 14 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELVIS MARIANO ALVARADO- No. 22-1222
RAYMUNDO,
Agency No. A213-143-334
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Elvis Mariano Alvarado-Raymundo, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming
an Immigration Judge (IJ)’s decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal,
*
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).
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Where, as here, the BIA issues its own opinion, “[w]e review only the BIA’s
decision, except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion.”
Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012). We review the BIA’s
factual findings regarding asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection for
substantial evidence, affirming “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland, 62 F.4th 1186,
1194, 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1185 (9th Cir. 2006)). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and
procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here. We deny the petition
for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Alvarado-
Raymundo did not establish the required nexus for asylum or withholding of
removal. To meet the nexus requirement, a noncitizen must show that his
protected ground was “a reason” (withholding of removal) or “one central reason”
(asylum) that he has been or will be harmed. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846
F.3d 351, 357–58 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 8 U.S.C.§§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i),
1231(b)(3)(A), (C)).
2
Here, however, the evidence shows that the gang members who attacked
Alvarado-Raymundo did so in order to rob him or recruit him for their gang. The
record does not compel the conclusion that any protected ground was “a reason” or
“one central reason” that the gang members harmed him.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Alvarado-
Raymundo did not establish eligibility for CAT protection. For CAT protection, a
noncitizen “must prove that it is ‘more likely than not that he or she would be
tortured if removed to the proposed country.’” Id. at 361 (quoting 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.16(c)(2)). “Torture is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and
does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment that do not amount to torture.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2); Ahmed v.
Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200 (9th Cir. 2007); Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056,
1066 (9th Cir. 2013). In addition, “generalized evidence of violence and
crime . . . not particular to [a] [p]etitioner[] . . . is insufficient” to establish
eligibility for CAT protection. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th
Cir. 2010).
Here, the IJ and BIA recognized that Alvarado-Raymundo was “the victim
of actual harm, and death threats” in Guatemala. However, the record does not
compel the conclusion that the harm he experienced was “extreme” rising to the
3
level of torture, Ahmed, 504 F.3d at 1201; Vitug, 723 F.3d at 1066, or that
Alvarado-Raymundo, in particular, would likely be tortured if he were removed to
Guatemala, Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152.
PETITION DENIED.
4