N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JUAN C ARLOS AGUILAR AVILA, Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. Nos. 17-72071 18-70044 Age n c y No. A095-446-796 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 14, 2022 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd SIM ON, *** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED JUN 17 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 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ore g o n, sitting by de signa tion.Pe titione r Jua n C arlos Aguila

r Avila (Aguila r Avila ), a

native of M e xic o a

nd a c itiz e n of M e xic o a

nd El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of a de c ision from

the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (B IA) dism issing his a ppe a l from

the de nia l of his a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(C AT). Aguila r Avila a lso c ha lle nge s the B IA’ s de c ision de ny ing his a

pplic ations for c anc e l lation of re m ova l a nd spe c ia l rule c anc e lla tion of re m ova l for a

batte re d spouse . To the e xte nt we have jurisdic tion it is pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e DE NY in pa rt a nd DISM ISS in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w.

“ W e re vie w the de nia l of a sy l um , withholding of re m ova l an d C AT c la im s for substa ntia l e v ide nc e .” Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C ir. 2019) (c ita

tions omitte d ). “ Unde r this sta nda rd, we m u st uphold the

a g e nc y de te rm i nation unle ss the e vide nc e c om pe l s a c ontra ry c o n c lusion.” Id . (c ita

tion om i tte d). Howe ve r, in the a bse nc e of a

c olora b le le g a l or c o nstitutiona

l c la i m , we have no jurisdic t ion to re vie w the B IA’ s disc re tiona ry de te rm ination tha

t anonc itiz e n fa ile d to e sta

blish “ e xc e ptiona l and e xtre m e ly unusua l ha

rdship” to the nonc itiz e n’ s spouse , pa

re nt, or c hild, who is a

c itiz e n of the Unite d State s or a

nonc itiz e n la wfully a dm itte d for pe rm ane nt re side n c e , a s re quire d for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l or spe c ia l c anc e lla t ion of re m ova l. Vilc hiz-Soto v . Holde r , 688 F.3d 642,

2644 (9th C i r. 2012); s e ealso Monroy v . Ly nc h , 821 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th C ir. 2016). W e re vie w de nia l of a m otion to re c onside r for a buse of disc re tion a

nd re ve rse only

if the B IA “ a c te d a

rbitra rily , irrationa l ly , or c ontra ry to la w.” Mohamme d

v . Gonzale

z , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2005). B e c a use the B IA a gre e d with there a soning of the Im m igrat ion Judge(IJ) an d a dde d its own ana ly sis, we re v ie w both de c i sions. Se eHuang v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th C ir. 2014). 1. The B IA de te rm ine d

tha t Aguila r Avila ’ s fe ar of ge ne ra l ga ng viole nc e wa s not suffic ie nt to e sta

blish e ithe r pa s t pe rse c ution or a we l l-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ut ion. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t Aguila r Avila l a c ke d a

n obje c tive ly

re a sona b le we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se eGormle

y v . Ashc roft , 364 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th C ir. 2004) (re quiring “ a

showing by

c re dible , dire c t, a

nd spe c i fic e vide nc e in the re c ord, of fa c t s supporting a

re a sona ble fe ar of pe rse c ution on the re le va nt ground” ) (c ita

tion om i tte d). Aguila

r Avila ’ s spa

rse and c onc lusory

sta te m e nts tha

t he fe ars da

nge rous c onditions a

nd ga ng viole nc e in M e xic o a

nd El Sa lva d or doe s not m e e t the re quisitele ve l of spe c ific i ty to sa tisfy his burde n. Se eid .; s e ealso Duran-Rodrigue

z , 918 F.3d a

t 1028 (“ Pe rse c ution is a

n e xtre m e c onc e pt tha

t doe s

3not inc lude e ve ry sort of tre atm e nt our soc ie ty re ga rds a s offe nsive .” ) (c ita

t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). 2. B e c a use Aguila

r Avila fa ile d to m e e t the lowe r burde n of proof for a sy lum , he ne c e s sa

rily fa ile d to sa

tisfy the c l e ar proba

bility sta nda rd re quire d to e sta blish e l igibility

for withholding of rem ova l. S e eSharma v . Garland

, 9 F.4th 1052, 1066 (9th C ir. 2021). 3. Substa ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the de nia l of C AT re lie f. Aguila r Avila ’ s ge ne ra l a sse rtion tha t he will betorture d if re turne d to M e xic o or El Sa lva d or is not supporte d by the re c ord a

nd is not ba se d on a

pa rtic ula riz e d ha rm to him . Se eEne h v . Holde r , 601 F.3d 943, 948 (9th C ir. 2010) (e xpla i ning tha t “ a pe titione r m

ust show for purpose s of C AT re lie f that som e one — e ithe r a gove rnm e nt offic ia l or priva te a c tor— spe c ific a l ly

inte nde d to torturehim

or he r” ) (c ita tion omitte d); se ealso R ie ra-Rie ra v . Ly nc h , 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th C ir. 2016) (sta ting tha t ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e is “ insuffic i e nt for prote c tion unde r C AT” ) (c ita tion omitte d). 4. Aguila r Avila ’ s Ope ning B rie f did not a ddre ss the a g e nc y ’ s disc ussion of his fa ilure to e sta

blish there quisite“ e xc e p tiona l a nd e xtre m e ly

unusua l ha

rdship” ne e de d for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l or spe c ia l rule c anc e lla tion of re m ova l. 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(D), (b)(2)(A)(v). Aguila r Avila ha s thus wa i ve d a

ny 4argum e nt re ga rding the se c la im s. Se eMartine z -Se rrano v . I.N

. S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996). In a ny e v e nt, Aguila

r Avila fa ile d to ra ise a c olora

ble le ga l or c onstitutiona

l c la im pe rm itting re vie w of this disc re tiona ry de te rm ination. Se eVilc hiz-Soto , 688 F.3d a t 644; se ealso Monroy , 821 F.3d a t 1177-78. 5. Although Aguila

r Avila ’ s Ope ning B rie f c ha lle nge d the B IA’ s c onc lusion that he wa s ine l igiblefor c anc e lla tion on the

ba sis of his prior c onvic t ion, his Ope ning B rie f did not a ddre ss the a ge nc y ’ s disc ussion of his m otion for re c o nside ration. Ac c ordingly , he ha s wa ive d a ny argum e nt re ga

rding this c la im . Se eMartine

z-Se rrano , 94 F.3d a

t 1259-60. In a

ny e ve nt, a s the gove rnm e nt note s, Aguila r Avila fa ile d to ide ntify

any e rror in the a ge nc y ’ s de c i sion. Se eMe mbre no v . Gonzale

s , 425 F.3d 1227, 1230 n.5 (9th C ir. 2005) (e n ba nc ); se ealso 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(b)(1). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D in par t and DISM ISSE D in par t.

5