Court Opinion

ID: 9946037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 22:00:56.56096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:21.392385
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 28 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MILTON MAURICIO TACHIN ORTIZ,                   No. 23-900
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A208-884-576
 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.

      Milton Mauricio Tachin Ortiz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order affirming an asylum

officer’s negative reasonable fear determination. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an IJ’s negative reasonable

      *
             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).
fear determination. Orozco-Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021).

We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Tachin Ortiz 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 IJ’s determination that Tachin Ortiz

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

acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. 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). Tachin Ortiz’s contention that he was beaten by the police is not properly

before the court because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required); see also Santos-

Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-

jurisdictional claim-processing rule).

       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.

                                         2                                     23-900