N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DOM INGO M ANUEL-TOM AS, AKA Jua n M artine z -Edua

rdo, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-70087 Age n c y No. A205-707-454
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 19, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M UR G U IA and C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LYNN, *** C hie f Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED MAR 23 2021 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).

* * * The Honora

ble B arbara M . G. Ly

nn, C hie f Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.Dom ingo M anue l-Tom a s, a native and c itiz e n of Gua te m a la , pe titions for
re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de c ision dism issing his a

ppe a l from the Im m igrat ion Judge ’ s (IJ) orde r de ny ing a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l,
and re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT). W e re vie w que stions of la w de novo a

nd fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e vide n c e . Bre

zilie n v . Holde r , 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th C ir. 2009). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ), and we de ny the pe tition. 1 1. The im

m igration c ourt prope rly

e xe rc ise d jurisdic tion ove r M a nue lTom a s’ s re m ova l proc e e ding. C iting Pe re ira v . Se ssions , 138 S. C t. 2105 (2018), M an ue l-Tom a s a

rgue s the a ge nc y

ne ve r ha d jurisdic tion to re m o ve him be c a use his Notic e to Appe ar wa s de fe c tive . This a rgum e nt is fore c l ose d by

K aringithi v

. W hitak e r , 913 F.3d 1158, 1160 (9th C ir. 2019) (“ A notic e to a p pe ar ne e d not inc l ude tim e and da

te inform ation to . . . [me e t] the re gula tory re quire m e nts a

nd . . . [ve s t] j urisdic tion in the

[Imm igration Judge ] .” ). M anue l -Tom a s a lso a rgue s the IJ la c ke d pe rsona l jurisdic tion unde r the Fe de ra l R ule s of C i vil Proc e dure . The R ule s do not a p ply in im

m igration c ourt. Matte r of Be nite z , 19 I. & N. De c . 173, 174 (B IA 1984). M anue l-Tom a s furthe r argue s the re gula tions de fining jurisdic tion a re

1 B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts, we re c ite only those fa c ts ne c e ssa ry to de c ide the pe tition. 2ultra

vire s a s a re s ult of 8 U.S.C . § 1229(a ). This a rgum e nt is m ispla c e d be c a use , a s K aringithi re c ogniz e d, “ the re gula tions, not § 1229(a

), de fine whe n jurisdic tion
ve sts. Se c tion 1229 sa

y s nothing a

bout the Im

m i gra tion C ourt’ s jurisdic tion.” 913 F.3d at 1160. 2. M anue l-Tom a s a

rgue s the IJ e rre d

by de ny ing his m otion to suppre s s
e vide nc e obta ine d a s a

re sult of his a

rre st by C ustom s a

nd B orde r Prote c t ion (C B P). In pa

rtic ula r, he argue s the I-213 a

nd his sta te m e nts to C B P should ha ve be e n suppre sse d be c a

use the y we re obta ine d through a

n e gre gious viola

tion of his Fourth Am e ndm e n t

rights. Se e Sanc he

z v . Se ssions , 904 F.3d 643, 649 (9th C ir. 2018). M anue l-Tom a s fa ils to e xpla in the ke y disc re pa nc y the IJ re lie d on in de ny ing the m otion: hegave a sworn sta

te m e n t the da

y a fte r he wa s a

rre ste d in whic h he indic a t e d he wa s on foot whe n he wa s stoppe d, a n d the n in the m otion to suppre ss he argue d tha

t he wa s subje c t

to a n unla wful ve hic l e stop. M anue l-Tom a s doe s not dispute

tha t the I-213 is a

uthe ntic . Tha

t form provide s the gove rnm e nt’ s
a c c ount of M anue l-Tom a s’ s a rre st, a nd sta te s tha t he wa s stoppe d while he wa s on foot, te n m inute s north of theborde r, while a sking pa ssing ve h ic le s for a ride
. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s de nia l of the m otion on tha t ba s is. The gove rnm e n t be ars the burde n of e sta blishing alie na g e by

“ c le ar,
une quivoc a l a

nd c onvinc ing e vide nc e .” H e rnande z-Guadarrama v

. Ashc roft , 394
3F.3d 674, 679 (9th C ir. 2005) (c ita tion om itte d). “ Evide nc e of fore ign birth give s rise to a p re sum

ption tha t the pe rson so born is a

n a lie n.” C

orona-Palome ra v . IN S , 661 F.2d 814, 818 (9th C i r. 1981). In proc e e dings be fore the IJ, M a nue lTom a s introduc e d a

birth c e rtific a te showing hewa s born in Gua te m a l a . B e c a

use the p re sum

ption of re m ova

bility wa s not re butte d

and be c a use M anue l-Tom a s la

te r
a dm itte d a ll the a lle gations in the

Notic e to Appe ar, the IJ prope rly c onc lude d tha

t M an ue l-Tom a s “ c onc e de d tha t he wa s re m ova

ble a s c h arge d” and thus tha t
re m ova bility wa s “ e sta blishe d b y

c le ar an d c onvinc i ng e vide n c e .” B e c a use M an ue l-Tom a s did not m e e t the burde n of proving a n e gre gious viola

tion of his Fourth Am e ndm e n t

rights, a nd in a ny e ve nt suffe re d no pre

judic e by the introduc tion of theI-213 a nd his own sta

te m e nts be c a

use the re wa s othe r re c ord
e vide nc e e s ta

blishing alie na ge , we se e no e rror in the IJ’ s ruling. 3. M anue l-Tom a s ne xt a rgue s the IJ a

n d B IA e rre d by

de ny ing his
a pplic a tions for a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l. B e c a

use the B IA c onc lude d that his fa ilure to e sta

blish a sy l um

fore c lose d his a

bility to pre va il on the withholding of rem o v a l c la im , both c la im s turn on whe the r the B IA e rre d in
re je c ting his a sy lum

c la im
. Se eRe n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1094 n.17 (9th C ir. 2011).

4The B IA’ s de c ision de ny ing a sy lum re lie f wa s supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e . In orde r to e sta blish “ pa st pe rse c ution, a

n a pplic ant m

ust show: (1) a

n inc i de nt, or inc ide nts, tha t rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution; (2) tha t is ‘ on a c c ount of’ one of the sta

tutorily -prote c te d grounds; a nd (3) is c om

m itte d by the gove rnm e nt or forc e s the gove rnm e nt is e ithe r ‘ una ble or unwilling’ to c ontrol.” N av as v . IN S , 217 F.3d 646, 655–56 (9th C i r. 2000). M a nue l-Tom a s te stifie d tha

t he wa s atta c ke d by

m e n se nt by

his fa the r. M anue l-Tom a s offe re d no e v ide nc e his
a tta c k e rs we re m otiva

te d by re ligious a

nim us. He te stifie d tha

t his a tta c k e rs
warne d him

to bre ak up with his girlfrie

nd, but hene ve r te stifie d tha t his a tta c ke rs
m e ntione d re ligion. Hea lso te stifie d he wa s unsure how his fa the r would ha

ve le arne d he c onve rte d to a

Prote sta nt de nom ination give n tha t he ha d not spoke n to his fa the r in the six y e ars prior to theatta c k. Eve n a ssum ing a

ne xus to a

prote c te d ground e xiste d, M anue l-Tom a s
c onc e de d tha

t his fa m ily did not list his fa

t he r’ s na m e on the polic e re port de sc ribing the a tta c k. He ha s fa ile d to show the Guate m a la

n gove rnm e nt is unwilling or una

ble to c ontrol his fa

the r or the atta c k e rs. M anue l-Tom a s ha s a lso fa ile d to e sta

blish a re a s ona ble fe ar of future pe rse c ution be c a use he c onc e de s tha

t he c o uld re a s ona

bly re loc ate to a

nothe r part of Gua

te m a l a to a void his fa

the r. Duran-Rodrigue

z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th C ir. 2019).
5On a

ppe a l, M anue l-Tom a s a

rgue s he will be pe rse c ute d on a c c ount of his
m e m b e rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group ba se d on “ k inship a nd indige nous de sc e nt.” This c la im

is une x h a

uste d. Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th C ir. 2004). Eve n if it we re prope rly ra ise d be fore the IJ a

n d B IA, M anue lTom a s fa ils to e sta

blish a ne xus be twe e n

his fa m ily m e m be rship a nd pe rse c ution be c a use he ha s not shown othe r m e m be rs of his fa

m ily have be e n

ha rm e d , or a

re pre s e ntly at risk of be ing pe rse c ute d. Matte r of L-E-A- , 27 I. & N. De c . 40, 43–44 (B IA 2017), abrogate d

on othe r grounds , 27 I. & N. De c . 581 (AG 2019). 4. Fina lly , M anue l-Tom a s a rgue s the IJ e rre d

by de ny ing re lie f pursua

nt to the C o nve ntion Aga i nst Torture . The re c ord doe s not c om pe l a c ontra

ry
c onc lusion. M anue l ha s fa ile d to show it is m

ore like ly tha n not he will be torture d

“ by or at the instiga

tion of or with the

c onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of a public offic ia l or othe r pe rson a c t i ng in a n offic ia l c a

pa c ity .” Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th C ir. 2014) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion om i tte d); 8 C .F.R . § 208.18(a)(1). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

6