Court Opinion

ID: 9913325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-27 19:01:10.536782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:33.445279
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     DEC 27 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANKLIN RAMIREZ-NAVARRETE,                      No. 21-605
                                                 Agency No.
               Petitioner,                       A094-895-301
    v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

               Respondent.

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

                       Argued and Submitted December 8, 2023
                                  Portland, Oregon

Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

         Franklin Ramirez-Navarrete petitions for review of a Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.1

         *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1
 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The
motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
      Where, as here, the BIA adopts or relies on only part of the IJ’s reasoning,

we “treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Santiago-

Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks

omitted) (quoting Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 2008)). “In

reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by

that agency.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Any error

committed by the IJ thus may be rendered harmless by the BIA’s application of the

correct legal standard.” Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir. 1998)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “We review factual findings,

including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Garcia v.

Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). “Substantial evidence review means

that the BIA’s determinations will be upheld if the decision is supported by

reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a

whole.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). We reverse only where “the evidence

compels a contrary conclusion from that adopted by the BIA.” Id. (quoting

Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir. 2010)).

      1.     Ramirez asserts that the BIA erred in not finding his three proposed

social groups cognizable. But the BIA permissibly assumed, without deciding, that

all three of Ramirez’s proposed social groups were cognizable. There is therefore

                                        2                                      21-605
no need for us to decide whether those proposed social groups are appropriate

particular social groups for asylum and withholding of removal purposes.

      2.     Ramirez also argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s conclusion

that he was not likely to be institutionalized if removed to Mexico. Ramirez

contends that the IJ erroneously disregarded expert testimony in reaching this

conclusion. We disagree.

      “If the Board rejects expert testimony, it must state ‘in the record why the

testimony was insufficient[.]’ . . . Improperly rejected expert testimony is a legal

error and, thus, per se reversible.” Castillo v. Barr, 980 F.3d 1278, 1283 (9th Cir.

2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the IJ explained his

reasons for departing from the expert’s opinion.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Ramirez did not

demonstrate a reasonable possibility or that it was more likely than not that he

would be institutionalized if removed to Mexico. See Al-Harbi v. INS., 242 F.3d

882, 888–89 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding eligibility for asylum requires a reasonable

possibility of persecution, but eligibility for withholding of removal is subject to

the more stringent standard of a clear probability of persecution); Singh v. Holder,

764 F.3d 1153, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that a successful CAT application

requires a showing that torture is more likely than not to occur if the applicant is

removed). Although the record supports the expert’s credibility as to her diagnosis

                                         3                                    21-605
of schizophrenia, and that diagnosis was fully credited, the record also supports the

IJ’s conclusion, affirmed by the BIA, that the expert’s predictions about Ramirez’s

future in Mexico were marred by her inadequate knowledge of Ramirez’s work

history, his familial relationships, and Mexican country conditions. Given these

gaps, the agency’s decision to discount her testimony in these areas was justified.

      The record also supports the IJ’s additional conclusions. First, Mexico’s

efforts to restructure its healthcare system and the existence of a mental health

budget not solely dedicated to psychiatric hospitals demonstrate that Ramirez may

be able to get medical treatment in Mexico without being institutionalized.

Second, Ramirez’s 30-year history of extensive criminal and immigration

proceedings without detection of his significant mental illness supports the IJ’s

finding that even if unmedicated in Mexico, Ramirez has not shown the requisite

likelihood that he would be institutionalized against his will. Substantial evidence

supports the agency’s conclusions that there is insufficient likelihood that Ramirez

will be institutionalized if removed to Mexico.

      3.     Because the agency concluded that Ramirez is not likely to be

institutionalized if removed to Mexico, it did not consider whether Mexican

psychiatric institutions’ practices arise to the level of persecution or torture based

on the record in this case. That question is therefore not before us.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                          4                                     21-605