N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT OSW ALDO C ARDONA-SANC HEZ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-72505 Age n c y No. A089-853-291 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 De c e m

be r 9, 2019 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB ER , B ER

ZON, a nd HIGGINSON, *** C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Oswa ldo C ardona -Sanc he z se e ks re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (the “ B oa rd” or “ B IA” ) fina l orde r de ny ing his re q ue sts for withholding of rem o v a l a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ).



# FIL ED DEC 13 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ste phe n A. Higginson, Unite d State s C i rc uit Judgefor the U .S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Fifth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.Pe titione r a lso c ha lle n g e s the B oa rd’ s finding tha

t he wa s not pre

judic e d a s a

re sult of any due proc e ss viola

tion during proc e e dings be fore the im m igrat ion judge (“ IJ” ). W e de ny

the pe tition. 1. As to Pe titione r’ s withholding c la im , substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Pe titione r did not show tha t the Guat e m a la

n gove rnm e nt is una ble or unwilling to c ontrol those whom Pe titione r antic ipate s will pe rse c ute him . Se e Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ) (e xpla ining c rite ria

and sta nda rd of re vie w); Pa ga

y on v. Holde r, 675 F.3d 1182, 1190-91 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ). “ Eve n if we m ight ha ve re a c h e d

a
c onc lusion diffe re nt from tha t re a c h e d by

the B IA, we m a

y not re ve rse unle ss we de te rm i ne tha

t a ny re a sona b le fa c tfinde r would ha

v e be e n c o m

pe lle d to re a c h tha

t
c onc lusion.”Lolong v. Gonz a l e s, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th C i r. 2007). The B IA and IJ c onside re d both thedoc um e nta ry e v ide nc e and the spe c ific fa c t s of Pe titione r’ s c a se whe n e va luating theGuate m a l an gove rnm e nt’ s willingne ss a

nd a bility to c ontrol theSandova l fam ily
. The doc um e n ta ry e vide nc e that Pe titione r subm itte d re ports tha t “ ra pe and othe r se xu a l offe nse s” are se rious proble m s in Gua

te m a la . Othe r doc um e nta ry e v ide nc e , howe ve r, inc luding a U.S. Stat e De p artm e n t R e port, shows tha t the Guate m a la

n gove rnm e nt ope ra te s program s to “ e nc oura ge vic tim s and witne sse s to re port” se x c rim e s. Se e Sowe v.
2M uka s e y , 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ U.S. De pa rtm e nt of Sta

te c ountry
re ports a re the m ost a

ppropria te and pe rha

ps the be s t re sourc e for inform ation on politic a l situa

tions in fore ign na

tions.”(inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)). R e ports show tha

t se ve ra l “ c om

pla ints of se xua l a ssa

ult or ra pe a ga inst minors”
we re “ s uc c e ssfully

prose c ute d.” Pe titione r’ s a

ne c dota l e vide nc e shows tha t polic e fa ile d to a

ppre he n d R e ube n Sandova l for kidna p ing. B ut the e vide nc e a lso re ve a ls tha t the Guate m a la

n polic e “ c am e to look for the y oung girl.” Although Re ube n wa s not a ppre he nde d,
e vide nc e of “ a

ge ne ra l ine ffe c tive ne s s on the gove rnm e nt’ s pa rt to inve s tiga

te and pre v e n t c rim e will not suffic e to show a c quie sc e n c e .” Andra de -Garc ia v. Ly nc h, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th C ir. 2016) (c iting Ga rc ia -M ilia n v. Holde r, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th C ir. 2014)). Eve n a ssum ing tha

t the e vide nc e c ould support a finding tha

t the Guate m a la

n gove rnm e nt is unwilling or una ble to prote c t v i c tims of se xua l c rim e s, the re is no e vide nc e tha

t the gove rnm e nt is unwilling or una ble to prote c t Pe titione r, a s the fathe r of a vic tim of se xua l a

buse , from the pe rse c ution he m ight fa c e . As the B IA re c ogniz e d, Pe titione r fa ile d to tie e vide nc e of the Guat e m a la n gove rnm e nt’ s a l le ge d lax ity towa rd se x c rim e s to a

laxity towa rd all c rim e s.

3This c onc l usion fore c lose s Pe t itione r’ s withholding c la im . Na hrva ni v. Gonz a le s, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th C ir. 2005). Thus, we ne e d not re a c h a

ny othe r issue s re g arding tha

t c la i m . 2. W e a lso de ny

the pe tition a s to Pe titione r’ s c la im for C AT re lie f. Se e Shre stha v. Holde r, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th C ir. 2010) (sta ting sta nda rd of
re vie w a n d C AT sta

nda rd). Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B oa rd’ s finding tha

t Pe titione r ha s not de m onstra te d e ligibility for C AT re lie f. Pe titione r’ s sole
e vide nc e supporting his CAT c l a im is a n indire c t thre at. Tha

t e v ide nc e is insuffic ie nt to show tha

t it is “m ore like l y tha

n not tha t he . . . would betorture d” if
re turne d to Gua

t e m a la . 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). Furthe r, for the re a sons sta te d a bove , a ny torture Pe t itione r m ight suffe r if he
re turns to Gua

te m a la would not oc c ur with thegove rnm e nt’ s a c quie sc e nc e . Se e Garc ia -M ilia

n, 755 F.3d a

t 1034 (“ [E] vide nc e tha

t a gove rnm e nt ha s be e n ge ne ra lly ine ffe c tive in pre ve nting or inve stiga t ing c rim ina l a c tivitie s [doe s not]
ra ise an infe re nc e tha

t public offic ia ls a

re like ly to a c quie sc e in torture , a bse nt
e vide nc e of c orruption or other ina bility or unwillingne ss to oppose c rim ina l orga niz ations.” ). Pe titione r c onte nds tha

t the B oa rd’ s c ursory

ana ly sis of tha

t issue “ viola

te s due proc e ss.” That c onte ntion is unfounde d be c a use the B oa

rd e xplic itly a dopte d
4the IJ’ s de c ision a nd c i te d the IJ’ s m ore de ta ile d fa c tua l findings a nd re a soning whe n a na ly z ing Pe titione r’ s C AT c la im . R e a d toge the r, the B IA’ s a nd IJ’ s de c isions “

p rovide a re a sone d e xpla

nation for [the ir] a c tions.”M ovsisia n v. Ashc roft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C ir. 2005). 3. Fina lly , Pe titione r’ s due proc e ss rights we re not viola te d whe n he wa s prohibite d from

c a lling his siste

r a s a witne ss. Se e M e n de z -Garc ia v. Ly nc h, 840 F.3d 655, 665 (9th C ir. 2016) (sta ting sta nda rd of re vie w for proc e dura l due proc e s s c la im s in im

m i gration proc e e dings). Pe titione r did not identify his sister a s
a pote ntia l witne ss until the da y of the im m igrat ion he aring. Although the IJ prohibite d the te s tim ony , the IJ a llowe d Pe titione r’ s c ounse l to proffe r the te stim ony tha t the siste r would ha

ve give n. The IJ the n a c c e pte d this te stim ony a s true . Pe titione r ha s the re fore fa ile d to de m onstra te tha t he wa s pre

j udic e d by

the IJ’ s re fusa l to a llow his siste r to te stify
. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

5