Solis-Reyes v. Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 24 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    VICTORIANO SOLIS-REYES,                         No. 22-1024
    Agency No.
    Petitioner,                        A099-823-961
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted July 20, 2023**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: SILER,*** WARDLAW, and M. Smith, Circuit Judges.
    Victoriano Solis-Reyes, a citizen of Mexico, petitions this court to review the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of withholding of removal and Convention
    *
    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 Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the
    Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    Against Torture (CAT) relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    .
    We deny the petition for review.
    We review legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial
    evidence. Tomczyk v. Garland, 
    25 F.4th 638
    , 643 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Under
    the latter standard, “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
    reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(4)(B). Where, as here, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirms
    the Immigration Judge (IJ) and cites Matter of Burbano, 
    20 I. & N. Dec. 872
     (BIA
    1994), “we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Ruiz-Colmenares v.
    Garland, 
    25 F.4th 742
    , 748 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).
    1.    Solis-Reyes’s removal proceedings were validly commenced, as the
    “the failure of an NTA to include time and date information does not deprive the
    immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction.”      United States v. Bastide-
    Hernandez, 
    39 F.4th 1187
    , 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
    2.    The BIA properly determined that Solis-Reyes did not suffer past
    persecution, and substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even assuming
    arguendo Solis-Reyes suffered past persecution, he is not likely to be persecuted
    after returning to Mexico. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 208.16
    (b)(1) (past persecution triggers a
    2                                   22-1024
    rebuttable presumption of future persecution).1 Solis-Reyes concedes that he was
    never physically harmed in Mexico, but he fears returning to Mexico because of a
    long-ago familial land dispute in which his uncle shot at one of his brothers in 1989
    and threatened his other brother around 2004. Solis-Reyes’s family relocated after
    the 1989 incident and experienced no further incidents involving the uncle—other
    than when Solis-Reyes’s brother returned to the disputed land around 2004 and
    confronted the uncle.     See 
    8 C.F.R. § 208.16
    (b)(1)(i)(B) (reasonable internal
    location).   Solis-Reyes’s family no longer owns the disputed land.          See 
    id.
    § 208.16(b)(1)(i)(A) (changed circumstances). And Solis-Reyes’s sister has lived
    for years in Mexico without any incident. See Sinha v. Holder, 
    564 F.3d 1015
    , 1022
    (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] petitioner’s fear of future persecution ‘is weakened, even
    undercut, when similarly-situated family members’ living in the petitioner’s home
    country are not harmed.” (citation omitted)).
    3.     The IJ did not deprive Solis-Reyes of due process by declining to hear
    his sister’s testimony. To prevail on a due process challenge, Solis-Reyes must show
    both that (1) his removal proceedings were “fundamentally unfair,” and (2) he
    suffered prejudice, such that “the outcome of the proceeding may have been
    1
    We need not decide which standard of review—de novo or substantial
    evidence—applies to past-persecution determinations because, even applying de
    novo review, we find no error in the BIA’s determination here. Cf. Flores Molina
    v. Garland, 
    37 F.4th 626
    , 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022).
    3                                  22-1024
    affected.” Zamorano v. Garland, 
    2 F.4th 1213
    , 1226 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation
    omitted). His sister would have testified that their uncle successfully bribed local
    police after the 1989 incident. The IJ reasonably declined to hear such testimony
    because, even “taking all of [it] as true,” it did not relate to the dispositive issue on
    which the IJ would ultimately deny relief: that Solis-Reyes is not likely to be harmed
    upon his return to Mexico.
    4.     Solis-Reyes’s remaining contentions of legal error also fail. First,
    contrary to Solis-Reyes’s assertion, the IJ did not adopt a “bright-line rule” regarding
    the passage of time. The IJ made a fact-specific finding that “the record evidence
    after 30 years and the selling of the land would sufficiently rebut any [past-
    persecution] presumption.” Second, again contrary to Solis-Reyes’s assertion, the
    BIA did not treat the presence of his sister in Mexico as “the only factor[] in
    determining whether internal relocation is reasonable” (capitalization standardized).
    The BIA mentioned the sister’s experience while incorporating the IJ’s decision,
    which emphasized that Solis-Reyes had himself internally relocated. Third, the IJ
    properly considered the CAT-relief regulatory factors.          The IJ considered the
    absence of any past torture and Solis-Reyes’s ability to internally relocate. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.16
    (c)(3)(i)–(ii). Solis-Reyes identifies no “applicable” pattern of
    human rights abuses; nor does he identify what “[o]ther relevant information” the IJ
    should have considered. See 
    id.
     § 1208.16(c)(3)(iii)–(iv).
    4                                    22-1024
    The petition for review is DENIED. The temporary stay of removal remains
    in place until the mandate issues.
    5                               22-1024
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-1024

Filed Date: 7/24/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/24/2023