Court Opinion

ID: 9380273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 19:00:35.033512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.922289
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           MAR 17 2023
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILGENS PIERRE,                                   No. 21-308

               Petitioner,                        Agency No.       A209-869-960

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

               Respondent.

                    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted March 13, 2023**
                                Pasadena, California

Before: LEE, BRESS, MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

       Wilgens Pierre, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of a Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration

Judge (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s

decision for substantial evidence. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060, 1066

       *
            This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(9th Cir. 2021). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination

unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr,

918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). “Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of

Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994) and also provides its own review

of the evidence and law, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.”

Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation and

alterations omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the

petition.

      1.     Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Pierre’s

applications for asylum and withholding of removal. To be eligible for asylum,

a petitioner must demonstrate a “likelihood of ‘persecution or a well-founded fear

of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a

particular social group, or political opinion.’” Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1059 (quoting

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal,

the petitioner must show a “clear probability” of such harm. Id. (quoting Alvarez-

Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003)).

      An asylum or withholding applicant has the burden of demonstrating his

“membership in [a] particular social group.” Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132

n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 223 (BIA

2014)). Though “landownership may form the basis of a particular social group,”

Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1114 (9th Cir. 2013), the BIA reasonably

concluded that Pierre failed to demonstrate membership in the proposed

                                        2                                   21-308
particular social group of “Haitian Landowners Targeted by Other Haitian

Individuals to Dispossess Them of Their Land.” Pierre failed to demonstrate that

he owned land in Haiti. On the contrary, he testified that the land he was allegedly

forced to abandon was titled in his mother’s name. Although he suggested that

he was involved in the sale of the land after his mother’s death, he conceded that

he never owned it. The BIA therefore reasonably concluded that Pierre failed to

establish persecution based on his membership in a particular social group. The

record does not compel a contrary conclusion.

      2.     Pierre failed to make any argument or cite any authority regarding

CAT protection in his opening brief. Any challenge to the BIA’s determination

on that issue is therefore waived. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260

(9th Cir. 1996). Regardless, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of

CAT relief. Pierre has not alleged any past harm rising to the level of torture and

the record does not support that he is likely to be tortured if removed to Haiti.

The BIA thus reasonably concluded that Pierre has not satisfied his burden for

CAT protection. See Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir.

2020) (holding that an applicant seeking relief under the CAT must establish that

he “will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a

public official if removed to h[is] native country”).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                         3                                    21-308