Court Opinion

ID: 9370734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 18:00:45.287397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:23.335726
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             FEB 14 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MILTON VASQUEZ-AJXUP, AKA                        No.   19-72588
Alsvaldo Hernandez, AKA Oswaldo
Hernandez-Vasquez, AKA Milton                    Agency No. A087-535-589
Vasquez Axjup,

              Petitioner,                        MEMORANDUM*

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                            Submitted February 8, 2023**
                                 Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Milton Vasquez-Ajxup, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against

      *
             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).
Torture (CAT). An immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application, and the

Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.

      Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here.

We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal

conclusions de novo. Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). The

agency determined that Petitioner did not establish that it is more likely than not

that he would be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a government official

if he were removed to Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2), 208.17(a),

208.18(a). Substantial evidence supports that determination.

      Although Petitioner focuses on whether the harm he experienced in

Guatemala rose to the level of torture, the agency properly considered “all

evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3). For

the most part, the harm of which Petitioner complains was perpetrated by people he

could not identify. Even assuming that Petitioner’s past treatment by police in

Guatemala rose to the level of torture, the record does not compel the conclusion

that it is “more likely than not,” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2), that Petitioner will be

tortured “by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public

                                           2
official or other person acting in an official capacity” if Petitioner is removed to

Guatemala, 8 C.F.R.§ 208.18(a)(1).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                           3