Court Opinion

ID: 9946954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 20:01:10.98438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:43.830333
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 1 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ VITELA,                      No. 23-1734
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A098-005-551
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of an
                                Immigration Judge

                           Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges

      Fernando Rodriguez Vitela, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of an immigration judge’s order affirming an asylum officer’s negative

reasonable fear determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for substantial evidence the agency’s reasonable fear determination, and we

      *
             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).
review de novo due process challenges to reasonable fear proceedings. Orozco-

Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for

review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodriguez

Vitela failed to show a reasonable possibility that the harm he fears would be on

account of a protected ground. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th

Cir. 2018) (no basis for withholding of removal where petitioner did not show a

nexus to a protected ground).

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that

Rodriguez Vitela failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-

Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (petitioner failed to

demonstrate government acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable

possibility of future torture).

      Rodriguez Vitela’s claim the agency violated due process by denying him

the opportunity to gather and submit evidence and additional time to prepare for

his hearing fails because he has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder,

770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner

must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

                                        2                                     23-1734
      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                       3                                 23-1734