Eleodoro Carrillo-Carrillo v. William Barr

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 5 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELEODORO CARRILLO-CARRILLO, No. 18-70834
AKA Eliodoro Carrillo-Carrillo,
Agency No. A206-914-734
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 30, 2020**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Eleodoro Carrillo-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
*
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).
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We may review only the grounds expressly relied upon by the
BIA. Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2016). “Where the BIA
issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration judge’s reasoning, we
review both decisions.” Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir.
2012). We review the factual findings of the immigration judge (IJ) and BIA for
substantial evidence and all legal conclusions de novo. Villavicencio v. Sessions,
904 F.3d 658, 663–64 (9th Cir. 2018).
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s rejection of Petitioner’s claims
of future persecution based on past persecution as a “Guatemalan child[] in a
domestic relationship who [is] unable to leave.” The BIA did not err in finding
that the Department of Homeland Security sufficiently rebutted Petitioner’s fear of
persecution because Petitioner is no longer a child dependent on his abusive
step-grandmother and does not lack financial resources. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(A) (presumption of well-founded fear of
future persecution rebutted by showing of a “fundamental change in
circumstances”). Petitioner was nineteen years old at the time of his March 1,
2017, hearing before the IJ, and he had lived independently in Mexico for eighteen
months before entering the United States. Thus, the BIA’s determination that
2
Petitioner lacked a well-founded fear of future abuse because he is now an adult
who can live independently is supported by the record.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner
does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his fear of gang
recruitment in Guatemala. Generalized fear of gang violence or criminal activity is
insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a
protected ground. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010); see also
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746–47 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding
petitioner had not established past persecution based on anti-gang political
opinions because he failed to present evidence that he was ideologically opposed
and evidence showed he was instead victimized for economic and personal
reasons), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d
1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013). Petitioner did not testify that he had ever been
threatened or harmed by Guatemalan gang members, nor did he present evidence
indicating that he would be persecuted by the gangs.
3. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in its ruling that Petitioner is not
entitled to a discretionary grant of humanitarian asylum. See Belayneh v. INS, 213
F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that we review a denial of humanitarian
asylum for abuse of discretion). Though Petitioner asserts that he is traumatized
3
by his step-grandmother’s abuse, he did not present any evidence documenting his
own psychological trauma and submitted only generalized evidence regarding
child abuse and malnourishment. The BIA acknowledged Petitioner’s experience
but permissibly determined that he was no longer a child that would be subject to
further abuse and had not shown other compelling reasons for being unwilling to
return to Guatemala.
4. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s dismissal of Petitioner’s CAT
claim. Petitioner submitted only country conditions evidence, and the record does
not reflect an individualized risk of future torture with the consent or acquiescence
of the Guatemalan government. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.18(a)(1), 1208.16(c)(2). The
BIA’s determination that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing likely
future torture with government acquiescence is supported by the record.
The petition is DENIED.
4