Court Opinion

ID: 9965073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 17:01:41.060931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:41.447725
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 1 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIPE ESCALONA HERNANDEZ,                      No. 23-1260
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A205-323-878
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

           On Petition for Review of an Order of an Immigration Judge

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Felipe Escalona Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for substantial

      *
             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).
evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We

review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.

Lopez-Urenda v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the

petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Escalona

Hernandez failed to show a reasonable possibility that the harm he suffered or 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).

      Escalona Hernandez’s contentions regarding a newly-proposed particular

social group are not properly before the court because he failed to raise them

before the IJ. 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).

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Escalona

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

or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589

F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Escalona Hernandez’s contention regarding ineffective assistance of counsel

is not properly before the court because he failed to raise it before the agency. See

                                        2                                   23-1260
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Santos-Zacaria, 598 U.S. at 417-19.

      Escalona Hernandez’s claims of due process violations by the IJ fail because

he has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th

Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both

a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

      The renewed motions for a stay of removal are denied.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          3                              23-1260