Court Opinion

ID: 9402067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 00:00:39.624345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:57.197455
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUN 14 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO QUINTANILLA-JURADO,                       No. 21-1326
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A205-319-156
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted June 8, 2023**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH and DESAI, Circuit Judges, and AMON, District Judge.***

      Mario Quintanilla-Jurado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his

appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding

of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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).
      ***
             The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The BIA’s denials of withholding of

removal and CAT claims are reviewed for substantial evidence. Duran-Rodriguez

v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We “must uphold the agency

determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. Pure legal

issues are reviewed de novo. Rivera-Peraza v. Holder, 684 F.3d 906, 909 (9th

Cir. 2012). We deny Mr. Quintanilla-Jurado’s petition for review.

      First, the BIA denied Mr. Quintanilla-Jurado’s withholding of removal

claim because he proposed two particular social groups that were not properly

raised before the IJ. The BIA properly declined to review the new groups for the

first time on appeal. See In re J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007).

Under the facts of this case, Mr. Quintanilla-Jurado did not exhaust “all

administrative remedies available to [him] as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).

We therefore deny the petition as to Mr. Quintanilla-Jurado’s withholding of

removal claim.

      Second, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Mr.

Quintanilla-Jurado was ineligible for protection under CAT. To qualify for CAT

protection, a movant bears the burden of proving that it is more likely than not

that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if

removed. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 891 (9th Cir. 2021). The

BIA did not err by finding that the evidence presented fails to establish that it is

more likely than not that the government of El Salvador would acquiesce in Mr.

Quintanilla-Jurado’s torture. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836

                                         2
(9th Cir. 2016) (finding “inability to bring the criminals to justice” and “general

ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not

suffice to show acquiescence”). We therefore deny the petition as to Mr.

Quintanilla-Jurado’s CAT claim.

      Finally, Mr. Quintanilla-Jurado has not established that the IJ violated his

due process rights. Mr. Quintanilla-Jurado’s allegation that the IJ did not

adequately weigh the evidence does not overcome the presumption that the IJ

reviewed all relevant evidence or establish that the alleged violation affected the

outcome of the proceeding. See Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.

2000); Larita-Martinez v. I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1092, 1095–96 (9th Cir. 2000).

      The petition for review is DENIED.

                                        3