Court Opinion

ID: 9409957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 21:01:11.882192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.503112
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUL 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN ROJAS DURAN,                               No. 22-611
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A093-216-564
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted July 17, 2023**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Juan Rojas Duran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of

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

review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings 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. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017)

(en banc). Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ and adds its own reasoning,

we review both decisions. Gonzalez Castillo v. Garland, 47 F.4th 971, 976 (9th

Cir. 2022). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

      While we retain power to review colorable constitutional claims, we do not

have jurisdiction over a discretionary denial of voluntary departure. See Rojas v.

Holder, 704 F.3d 792, 794 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, Rojas Duran argues that the

immigration judge “did not give sufficient consideration” to his “long length of

residence in the United States, his significant family ties and record of

employment.”     Because Rojas Duran challenges the agency’s sua sponte

discretionary weighing of positive and negative factors without raising a question

of law, we lack jurisdiction to review his claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

      Even assuming that Rojas Duran subjectively fears future persecution by

the unidentified individuals who kidnapped his son for unknown reasons,

substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that he failed to establish a

well-founded fear of future persecution where he did not show that relocation

within Mexico was unreasonable. “[A]n individual who can relocate safely

within his home country ordinarily cannot qualify for asylum.” I.N.S. v. Orlando

Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 18 (2002). We deny his petition with respect to his claim

for asylum.

      Qualifying for withholding of removal is “a more stringent standard” than

asylum. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019). Because

                                        2                                   22-611
Rojas Duran has not established asylum eligibility, he fails to meet the higher

burden of proof for withholding of removal. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d

520, 525 (9th Cir. 2006).

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Rojas Duran’s CAT

claim. A petitioner seeking CAT protection must show that it is “more likely than

not he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”

8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Rojas Duran does not claim that he was harmed or

tortured in Mexico before, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion

to the BIA’s finding that he has not established it is more likely than not that he

will be subjected to torture by or with the acquiescence of a public official. There

is no evidence or claim that the unknown individuals who kidnapped his son are

interested in him or even aware of his existence.

      PETITION DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

                                         3                                    22-611