Court Opinion

ID: 9382741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 17:00:37.096097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.355100
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAR 28 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Omar Armando Granados,                          No. 21-749

              Petitioner,                       Agency No.       A094-321-581

  v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

       Omar Armando Granados, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his

application for withholding of removal, protection under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT), and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v.

       *
            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).
Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for substantial

evidence the BIA’s determination that Granados is not eligible for withholding

of removal or protection under CAT. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039,

1048 (9th Cir. 2010). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite

only those necessary to decide the petition.

      As to withholding of removal, the BIA properly found that Granados’

fear of gang violence in El Salvador “bears no nexus to a protected ground.”

Granados argues only that he “will be targeted by gangs because he would be

coming from the United States and would be perceived to have money,” but we

have held that those “returning . . . [from] the United States [who] are believed

to be wealthy” is too broad to qualify as a cognizable “particular social group.”

Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2019).

      As to CAT relief, Granados argues that he has “a reasonable fear of future

torture.” Specifically, he points to a 2020 State Department report

demonstrating that torture occurs in El Salvador, and he argues that law

enforcement often turns a blind eye. But Granados makes no attempt to

demonstrate that he would face any particularized risk of torture, or to otherwise

explain why he is “more likely than not” to be tortured if returned to El

Salvador. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). As such, the BIA’s conclusion that

Granados “has not established . . . it is more likely than not he will be tortured

by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence . . . of a public

official,” is supported by substantial evidence.

                                         2
      Finally, Granados argues that he is entitled to cancellation of removal

based on exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S.-citizen wife

and stepson. On appeal, Granados asserts that the IJ and BIA applied the wrong

legal standard, but he fails to identify any legal error, instead explaining the

hardship that would result from his removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the

BIA’s discretionary determination that Granados failed to satisfy the

“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement for cancellation of

removal. Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2003)

(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D)).

      The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 2) is denied.

      PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

                                         3