N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ENOC C ALIX DIAZ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-71713 Age n c y No. A206-637-268
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

June 13, 2022 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON, C HR ISTEN, a nd KOH, C irc u it Judge s. Enoc C a lix Diaz (C a lix Diaz ), a native and c i tiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of a

de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) dism issing his
a ppe a l of the de nia l by

an im m igration judge(IJ) of a sy lum , withholding of 

# FIL ED
JUN 15 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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).re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (C AT). 1 C a lix Diaz
c onte nds tha

t the de nia l of withholding of re m o va l wa s not ba s e d on substa ntia l
e vide nc e , a

nd tha t he wa s e n title d to prote c tion unde r the C AT be c a use it wa s m ore like ly tha n not tha t he would be torture d

if re turne d

to El Sa lva dor. As the B IA an d IJ a lte rnative ly c onc l ude d, C a lix Diaz ’ s te stim ony , e ve n if de e m e d c re dible , did not c om pe l a finding tha

t he wa s e ntitle d to withholding of
re m ova l ba se d on pa st pe rse c ution. “ W e hav e re p e ate dly de nie d pe titions for
re vie w whe n, a

m ong othe r fa c tors, the re c ord did not de m onstra te signific ant phy sic a l ha

rm .” Sharma v . Garland

, 9 F.4th 1052, 1061 (9th C ir. 2021) (c ita tions
om i tte d). Additionally , “ [p] e titione rs ofte n point to thre a ts m a de a ga inst the m in support of the ir c la im s of pa st pe rse c ution. Thre a ts a re re l e va nt to thepa st pe rse c ution a

na ly sis. B ut m e re thre ats, without m o re , do not ne c e ssa

rily c om pe l a finding of pa st pe rse c ution.” Id. at 1062 (c ita tions, a l te ra tion, a

nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). C a lix Diazte stifie d

tha t he wa s be a te n on one oc c a sion a n d, de spite his body be ing “ full of blood,”

he did not se e k m e d ic a l tre at m e nt a nd re c upe ra te d with the
use of a c e tam inophe n a

nd “ house hold re m e d ie s.” The IJ de te rm ine d tha t C a lix

1 C a lix Diaz doe s not c ha lle nge the B IA’ s ruling tha t his a sy lum a pplic a tion wa s untim e ly . As a re sult, we lim it our re vie w to C a lix Diaz ’ s withholding of rem o v a l a nd C AT c la im s. 2Dia z “ p rovide d ve ry fe w de ta ils a

bout theinc i de nt,” and “ [t] he only spe c ific injury [C a lix Diaz ] de sc ribe d wa s be ing hit in the nose and suffe ring a

bloody nose .” C a lix Diaz a l so te stifie d tha t h e wa s thre a te ne d by

the sa m e individual s who be a t him , but he “ wa lke d a

way from the m and the y c ontinue d going to where the y we re going.” B a se d on C a lix Diaz ’ s te stim ony , substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the
a ge nc y ’ s de te rm i n a tion tha t the inc ide nts did not rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution
warran ting withholding of re m ova l
. Se e id. at 1065. 2 Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the de nia l of C A T re lie f be c a use C a lix Dia z did not point to a

ny e vide nc e e sta

blishing tha

t “ he would be subje c t to a partic ularize d thre at of torture , a nd tha t suc h torture would be inflic te d by or at the instiga tion of or with the

c onse nt or a c quie sc e n c e of a public offic ia l or othe r pe rson a c ting in a

n offic ia l c a

pa c ity .” Lalay a n v . Garland , 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th C ir. 2021) (c ita

tion omitte d) (e m

pha sis in the

origina l); se e also Ruiz-C o lme nare s
v . Garland

, 25 F.4th 742, 750-51 (9th C ir. 2022) (noting tha t “ the only

e vide nc e Pe titione r m

uste r[e d] in support of his CAT c l a im [wa s] ge ne ra liz e d c ountry
c onditions evide nc e , whic h [fe ll] short of m a k ing the pa

rtic ula riz e d a nd individua

l

2 C ontra ry to C a lix Diaz ’ s a sse rtions, le tte rs from his pa s tor a

nd a m unic ipa l dire c tor did not suffic ie n tly c orroborate his c la im s . As the IJ de te rm ine d, the m unic ipa l dire c tor wa s m e re ly re pe a ting inform a tion le arne d from C a lix Diaz ’ s pa re nts, a nd the pa stor’ s sta

te m e nt wa s va gue .

3showing of a n e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e ne c e ssa

ry to ove rturn the a ge nc y ’ s de c ision” ) (c ita

tion, a lte ra t ion, a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D. 3

3 B e c a use we de ny the pe tition ba se d on a la c k of pa st pe rse c ution, wene e d not a ddre ss the a ge nc y ’ s c re dibility de te rm ination. S

e e Ve lasque

z -Gaspar v . Barr , 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 n.3 (9th C ir. 2020). 4