NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

GILBER ELIAS

- VIVAS, AKA Gilber Ellas

Vivar, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 70626 Agency No. A088

- 771

- 030

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 17, 2022 * * Pasadena, California Before: BRESS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, ** * District Judge.
Gilber Elias

- Vivas petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his applications for 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.

** We previously granted the parties’ joint motion to submit this case on the briefs.

*** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

FEB 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review agency findings of fact
for substantia l evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We review questions of law and constitutional claims de novo

. Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey , 547 F.3d 1019 , 1023 (9th Cir. 2008 ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny th e petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Elias

- Vivas’s withholding of removal claim. To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted on account of a protected ground (i.e., race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion). See Barajas

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 358

– 60 (9th Cir. 2017) ; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)

. El ias

- Vivas argues that he will be persecuted on account of his familial ties , his status as a cooperating witness/victim, and an imputed “anti

- organized crime” political opinion. T he BIA concluded that Elias

- Vivas failed to demonstrate a nexus
to a protected ground because Elias

- Vivas’s alleged persecutors we re motivated solely by illicit financial gain, not animus towards his famil y , his political opinion , or any other protected ground. S ubstantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion
b ecause the record supports that Elias

- Vivas’s alleged persecutors target ed business owners, and began targeting Elias

- Vivas and his family only after they began their
businesses

. Moreover , Elias

- Vivas testified that the extortionists target ed any one3

who h ad a business. Indeed, he also testified that the extortionists were harassing him because they thought he ha d money from his car business.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of Elias

- Vivas’s CAT application. An applicant for CAT protection has the burden of proving it is “more likely than not” that he will be tortured with the acquiescence of a public official if removed. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1); Maldonado v. Lynch , 786 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2015). The acquiescence of a “public official requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene t o prevent such activity.” Ornelas

- Chavez v. Gonzales , 458 F.3d 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2006) (simplified)

. The BIA adopted the IJ’s conclusion that Elias

- Vivas failed to show that the Guatemalan government would acquiesce or consent to his torture by private actors. The IJ reasonably concluded that Elias

- Vivas’s fear of future torture was speculative. In addition, w hile the local police may have failed to prev ent extortion against his
father , country report evidence shows that Guatemala has taken steps to investigate and persecute those engaged in corrupt practices. See Del Cid Marroquin v. Lynch , 823 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam ) (“ [ A ] government does not

‘ acquiesce ’ to torture where the government actively, albeit not entirely successfully, combats the illegal activities

. . . . ”) (simplified) . Because the record does not compel4

a reasonable adjudicator to find that a government official would likely acquiesce to
Elias

- Vivas’s possible future torture, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
decision.
3. Even though Elias

- Vivas made a passing reference to a due process
violation in his opening brief , he provided n o argument supporting such a claim and , therefore , it is forfeited

. See Martinez

- Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 ( 9th Cir. 1996) ( “Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed
abandoned.” ).
DENIED.