N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOAQUIN ALVAR

ADO-ALVAR

ADO, AKA Joa quin Alva

ra d o, Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. Nos. 16-73315 17-71138 Age n c y No. A072-009-938 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 M arc h 16, 2022 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , GOULD, a nd C O LLINS, C i rc uit Judge s. Joa quin Alva

ra do-Alva

ra do (“ Pe titione r” ), a

native and c itiz e n

of El Sa lva d or, pe titions for re vie w of two de c isions of the B oa rd of Im m igration 

# FIL ED

MAR 21 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Appe a ls (“ B IA” ). In the first, the B IA dism isse d Pe titione r’ s a ppe a l of the im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his a pplic ations for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd spe c ia l rule c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l unde r the Nic ara g u an Adjustm e nt a

nd C e ntra l Am e ric an R e lie f Ac t (“ NAC AR A” ). In the se c ond, the B IA de n ie d Pe titione r’ s m otion to re o pe n ba se d on e ligibility for a d justm e n t of sta tus. W e have jurisdic t i on unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. “ W e re vie w ‘ d e nia ls of a sy lum [and] withholding of rem ova l . . . for substa ntia l e vide nc e .’ ” Guo v . Se ssions , 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th C ir. 2018) (quoting Yali W ang v . Se ssions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th C ir. 2017)). W e re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a m o t ion to re ope n for a buse of disc re t ion. Se e Tade v o sy an v . Holde r , 743 F.3d 1250, 1252–53 (9th C ir. 2014). W e dism iss thepe tition in pa rt a nd de ny it in pa rt. W e have no jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de c i sion de ny ing Pe titione r’ s a pplic ation for spe c ia l rule c anc e lla tion of re m ova l unde r NAC AR A. “ [The Ille ga l Im m i gration R e form an d Im m igra nt R e sponsibility

Ac t of 1996 (IIR

IR A)] e xpre s sly pre c l ude s fe d e ra l c ourts from re vie wing the a g e nc y ’ s fa c tua l de te rm i nation tha

t a n im m igra nt is ine ligiblefor A BC

be ne fits or spe c ia l rule c anc e lla tion of re m ova l un de r NAC AR A § 203.” Ix c ot v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 1202,

21213 (9th C ir. 2011). 1 “ W e do re ta in jurisdic tion to re vie w c olora ble c onstitutiona

l c la im s a nd que stions of la

w ra ise d in a

pe tition for re vie w of a

disc re tiona

ry de nia l of NAC AR

A c anc e lla

tion.” Monroy

v . Ly nc h , 821 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th C ir. 2016). Pe titione r ha s not ra ise d a ny c olora ble c onstitutiona

l c la im s or que stions of la w. Inste a d, Pe titione r c ha lle nge s the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l de te rm inat ions a bout his e ligibility for NAC AR

A re lie f, inc l uding whe the r he e nte re d the Unite d State s prior to Se p te m

be r 19, 1990. W e the re fore have no jurisdic tion ove r this c l a im . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the de nia l of Pe titione r’ s a

pplic ation for a sy lum . Pe titione r fa ile d to show tha t he suffe re d pa st pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a sta tutorily prote c te d ground. Pe titione r a lle g e d tha t gue rrilla s thre ate ne d a

n d shot at him w he n he wa s a

n a c tive m e m

b e r of the Sa lva dora

n a rm y . Howe v e r,

“ pe rse c ution re sulting from m e m be rship in thepolic e or m ilita ry is insuffic ie nt, b

y itse lf , to e sta blish pe rse c ution on a c c ount of m e m be rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc i a l group or politic a l opinion.” C ruz-N av arro v . IN

S , 232 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th C ir. 2000). Pe titione r a lso fa ile d t o show a we l l-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution.

1 Unde r NAC AR

A, a nationa l of El Sa lva dor m ay be e ligiblefor c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l if he or she is a re giste re d m e m

b e r of the c l a ss se ttle m e nt in Ame ric an Baptist C hurc he s v . Thornburgh (

ABC ), 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. C a l. 1991), but only if the a pplic ant e nte re d the Unite d State s on or be fore Se p te m be r 19, 1990. Se e IIR IR A § 309(c )(5)(C )(i)(I)(a a ), 8 U.S.C . § 1101 note . 3“ Abse nt e vide n c e of pa st pe rse c ution, [a n a pplic ant] m

ust e sta blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution by showing both a subje c tive fe ar of future pe rse c ution, a s we ll a s a

n obje c tive l y re a sona

ble possibility

of pe rse c ution upon re turn to the c ountry in que stion.” Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th C ir. 2019) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). Pe t itione r did not pre se n t a ny e v ide nc e of gue rrilla

thre ats to him sinc e his depa rture from

El Sa lva dor ove r 20 y e ars a go. Substa ntia l e vide nc e the re fore supports the de n ia l of his a sy lum a

pplic at ion. For the sa m e re a sons, substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the de nia l of withholding of rem o v a l. Dav ila v . Barr , 968 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th C ir. 2020) (“ An a pplic ant who fa ils to sa

tisfy the lowe r sta

nda rd for a sy lum ne c e ssa

rily fa ils to satisfy the m ore de m a

n ding sta nda rd for withholding of rem ova l .” ). The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Pe titione r’ s m otion to re ope n . Pe titione r sought to re o pe n on the ground tha t his U.S. c itiz e n da

ughte r ha d sought a

visa on his be ha lf, a

nd tha t if it we re grante d he would a pply for a djustm e nt of sta

tus. A nonc itiz e n a

pply ing for a

n im m i grant visa

“ ha s the burde n of e sta blishing . . . c le a

rly and be y ond doubt tha

t he is e ntitle d to be a dm itte d a nd is not ina dm issibleunde r [8 U.S.C . § 1182] .” Valade z-Munoz v . Holde r , 623 F.3d 1304, 1308 (9th C ir. 2010) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). Unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182, a nonc itiz e n c onvic te d

of a c rim e involving m

ora l turpitudeis ina dm issible 4and ine ligiblefor a d justm e nt of sta

tus. Safary a n v . Barr , 975 F.3d 976, 981, 988 (9th C ir. 2020). In Rohit v . Holde r , 670 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th C ir. 2012), we he ld that a c onvic tion for solic i ting prostitution in viola tion of C a l. Pe n a l C ode § 647 c onstitute s a

c rim e i nvolving mora l turpitude . Pe titione r wa s c onvic t e d of solic iting prostitution in viola tion of C a l. Pe n a l C ode § 647. Pe titione r is thus ina d m issibleand ine ligiblefor a djustm e nt of sta tus on there c ord be fore the a ge nc y . 2 The B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Pe t itione r’ s m otion to re ope n . W e dism iss thepe tition to revie w the B IA’ s de nia l of NAC A R A re lie f for la c k of jurisdic tion, a

n d de ny the re m a inde r of the pe t ition. PE T IT IO N DISM ISSE D IN PART , DE N IE D IN PART .

2 The re c ord doe s not indic ate that Pe titione r a pplie d for, or ha s shown tha t he is e ligiblefor, a

wa ive r of ina dm issibility unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(h). 5