NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARGARITO VELASQUEZ

RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 22

- 44 Agency No. A206

- 349

- 631

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 11, 2023 ** San Francisco , California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges

. Petitioner Margarito Velasquez

- Rodriguez , a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review from the denial of his application s for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge (IJ) denied petitioner’s application s , and the Board of

* 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). 

# FILED

MAY 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 44

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 12 52, and we deny the petition. 1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here.
We review the denial of Velasquez

- Rodriguez’s applications for withholding of
removal and CAT relief for substantial eviden ce, and we “must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion .”
Duran

- Rodriguez v. Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).
1. To qualify for withholding of removal, applicant s must show a “clear probability” that they will be persecut ed because of a protected ground, such as religion, political opinion, or membership in a “particular social group.” Garcia
v. Wilkinson , 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. T he agency specifically found that Velasquez

- Rodriguez failed to
establish a clear probability that the gang would target him based on his political opinion, his membership in the Mennonites, or his family. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion

. Velas quez - Rodriguez
testified that the gang extorted him and his family because of their money , killed his brother for the same reason, and also extorted their neighbors and
other families in Honduras for money

. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s deter mination that these were instances of generalized gang violence
and that the gang that threatened his family did not target him because of his

1 Velasquez

- Rodriguez’s motion to stay removal (Dkt. 2) is denied, and the temporary stay of removal (Dkt. 15) is vacated.3 22

- 44

affiliation with Mennonites or his family

. 2. The agency determined that Velasquez

- Rodriguez did not establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a government official if he is removed to Honduras

. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2), 208.17(a), 208.18(a) . Substantial evidence supports that
determination. Velasquez

- Rodriguez waive d any objection to the agency’s finding that the government would not consent or acquiesce to him being
tortured because he did not address this issue in his opening brief. Mar tinez

Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). Nor does the record compel the conclusion that Velasquez

- Rodriguez will be tortured if he returns to Honduras. Velasquez

- Rodriguez argues that he met his burden because he was
threatened over the tele phone and his brother was killed. But even considering
these factors together with Velasquez

- Rodriguez’s general evidence about violence in Honduras, we are not compelled to conclude that Velasquez

Rodriguez is eligible for CAT relief. See , e.g. , San tos

- Ponce v. Wilkinson , 987 F.3d 886, 891 (9th Cir. 2021); Duran

- Rodriguez , 918 F.3d at 1028

– 30.
PETITION DENIED.