Court Opinion

ID: 9385615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 17:00:51.890432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:01.834949
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 7 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE BALTA CASCO LANDAVERDE,                    No.    18-72770

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A200-150-215

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

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted March 31, 2023**
                                 Seattle, Washington

Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,*** District
Judge.

      *
             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 Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for
the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
      Jose Balta Casco Landaverde, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing

an appeal from an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying withholding of

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the agency’s factual findings for

substantial evidence, see Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir.

2022), we deny the petition for review.

      1.     Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Casco

failed to articulate a particular social group. Casco concedes that he “did not

explicitly state in his I-589 application [for asylum and for withholding of

removal] or testimony that he was a member of the particular social group ‘persons

in El Salvador that testify against gang members or otherwise oppose gang

members.’” Indeed, in his written application and at his merits hearing, Casco

alleged death threats and demands for money by gang members occurring both

before and after his employer reported the harassment to the police. There is no

evidence that Casco testified against gang members. Accordingly, the agency

reasonably concluded that Casco neither met his “burden to specifically delineate

h[is] proposed social group,” Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189,

                                          2
191 (B.I.A. 2018),1 nor established a nexus to a protected ground. See Zetino v.

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[A noncitizen’s] desire to be free

from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”).

      2.     Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Casco

is not entitled to CAT relief because he has not shown that he is more likely than

not to suffer torture in El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a). Casco allegedly

fears that the gang members would torture him if he returned to El Salvador

because they would remember him. But he has been in the United States for over a

decade and a half, and the company he worked for has been sold. Moreover, the

record evidence does not compel a conclusion that the government would

acquiesce to gang torture upon his return.

      PETITION DENIED.

1
       Casco argues for the first time in this petition for review that the IJ should
have “s[ought] clarification” if the IJ was “not clear as to the exact delineation of
the proposed social group.” Matter of W-Y-C-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 191. We do not
reach this issue because Casco failed to challenge in his BIA appeal the IJ’s
explicit determination that he failed to articulate a particular social group. See
Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 928–29 (9th Cir. 2011) (“We have repeatedly ‘held
that “failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust
remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear
the matter.”’” (quoting Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004)).

                                           3