Juan Romero-Salazar v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ANTONIO ROMERO-SALAZAR, No. 16-71956
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-241-056
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Juan Antonio Romero-Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo questions of law.
Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Romero-Salazar established
changed or extraordinary circumstances as to excuse his untimely asylum
application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2), (4)-(5). Thus,
Romero-Salazar’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Romero-
Salazar failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution.
See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an
extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel
the conclusion that threats rose to the level of persecution); Halim v. Holder, 590
F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not compel finding past persecution
where, in part, petitioner was harassed as a youth and beaten by a mob of rioters).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Romero-Salazar
failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Tamang
2 16-71956
v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was
not objectively reasonable).
Romero-Salazar’s contention that the IJ erred by failing to provide notice
and opportunity to produce corroborating evidence under Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d
1079 (9th Cir. 2011) fails, because the agency did not decide his claim on failure to
provide corroborating evidence. Instead, the record demonstrates that the agency
appropriately decided Romero-Salazar’s claim on the failure to meet his burden of
proof based on his testimony and record evidence. See id. at 1091 (“In
determining whether the applicant has met the applicant’s burden [of proof], the
trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of
record.” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)); see also Wang v. Sessions, 861
F.3d 1003, 1007-08 (9th Cir. 2017) (“the petitioner has the burden to satisfy the
trier of fact by offering . . . persuasive evidence”).
Thus, Romero-Salazar’s withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Romero-Salazar’s remaining
contentions regarding nexus. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th
Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they
reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-71956