N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ELFER ANTONIO PINEDA GUZM AN, Pe t i tione r,
v. R OB ER T M . W ILKINSON, Ac ting Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. Nos. 18-71036 19-70934 Age n c y No. A201-153-764
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 4, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd IKUTA a

nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Elfe r Pine da

Guz m an, a

nat ive and c itiz e n of Hondura s, pe titions for re vie w of two orde rs of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) de ny i ng his c la im for 

# FIL ED FEB 8 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT) a nd de ny ing his motion to
re ope n his c a se ba se d

on ne w e vide nc e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252. W e de ny the Pe tition for R e vie w. B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the history

of this c a se , we ne e d not
re c o unt it he re . I Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of re lie f unde r the C AT. Se e Av e ndano-He r

nande z v . Ly nc h , 800 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th C i r. 2015) (sta ting substa ntia l e vide nc e sta

n da rd). To obta in C AT re lie f, an a pplic ant m

ust show heis

“ m ore like ly tha

n not” to be torture d with gove rnm e nt a c quie sc e nc e upon re m ova l. 8 C .F.R . § 208.16(c )(2); W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th C ir. 2009). Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t the re c ruitm e n t

atte m pts, robbe rie s, a

nd thre ats tha

t Pine da Guz m an a

nd his fa m ily have e xpe rie n c e d at the ha nds of M ara Sa l vatruc ha

(M S-13), M ara

18, a nd unide ntifie d ga

ng m e m be rs do not de m onstra

te tha t Pine da Guz m an would m ore like ly tha n not be torture d upon
re m ova l to Hondura s. II The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Pine da Guz m an’ s m otion to
re ope n . Se e N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010) (sta ting a buse
2of disc re tion sta n da rd). Ne we v ide nc e pre se nte d in a m otion to re ope n m

ust be
m ate ria l , m

ust ha ve be e n una

va ila ble at the form e r he aring, a nd m ust be “ like ly [to] c ha nge the re sult in the

c a se .” Young Sun Shin v

. Muk ase y , 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th C ir. 2008); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(1). Howe ve r, the B IA ha s “ disc re tion to de ny a m otion to re ope n

e ve n if the pa

rty m o ving ha s m a de out a

prim a fa c ie
c a se for re lie f.” 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(a). The B IA re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha

t Pine da Guz m an’ s proffe re d e vide nc e of
a ne wthre at a ga inst his brothe r and M S-13’ s re c e nt politic a l a c tivity would not like ly c ha nge the outc om e of his c a se . Its de c ision to deny Pine d a Guz m an’ s
m otion to re o pe n w a s the re fore not “ arbitra ry , irrationa l, or c ontra

ry to la w.” Singh
v . IN S , 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th C ir. 2002) (quoting Ahw azi v . IN S , 751 F.2d 1120, 1122 (9th C ir. 1985)).

PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

3