Court Opinion

ID: 9891469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 18:00:43.61267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:25.900878
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         OCT 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Alfredo Ramos-Velasquez,                         No. 21-670

              Petitioner,                        Agency No.      A089-815-569

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                         Submitted March 13, 2023
                    Submission Withdrawn March 20, 2023
                       Resubmitted October 16, 2023**

Before: LEE, BRESS, MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

       Alfredo Ramos-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision that affirmed the

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) finding of adverse credibility, denied his application for

withholding of removal, and found him ineligible for protections under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,

       *
            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).
and we deny the petition.

      Ramos-Velasquez was first removed from the United States to Mexico in

2008, after he repeatedly presented himself as a Mexican national using a false

birth certificate and fake identifying information. Between 2008 and 2012,

Ramos-Velasquez attempted to reenter the United States five additional times; on

each occasion, he was permitted to depart voluntarily.           Ramos-Velasquez

returned to Guatemala in 2012. In 2015, while still in Guatemala, Ramos-

Velasquez claims that he was attacked by gang members who attempted to extort

him and prevent his efforts to curb gang recruitment through his church. Ramos-

Velasquez reentered the United States in 2017, at which time the Department of

Homeland Security reinstated removal proceedings.1

      1. Ramos-Velasquez’s claim for withholding of removal fails because

substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. “We

review the [agency’s] findings of fact, including adverse credibility

determinations and the findings underlying the denial of relief, for substantial

evidence.” Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268–69 (9th Cir. 2011). “Under the

REAL ID Act, there is no presumption that an applicant for relief is credible, and

the IJ is authorized to base an adverse credibility determination on ‘the totality of

1
  The government now concedes that we have jurisdiction under Alonso-Juarez
v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1039 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that the thirty-day deadline
provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a non-jurisdictional rule and that a reinstated
order of removal becomes final only after withholding-only proceedings have
concluded).

                                         2                                     21-670
the circumstances’ and ‘all relevant factors.’” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d

1149, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).

      Here, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Ramos-

Velasquez lacked credibility based on his “willful misrepresentations about his

identity” that were unrelated to the persecution that he later allegedly

experienced. See Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding

that a deception that is “completely unrelated to escaping immediate danger or

gaining entry to the United States” can support an adverse credibility

determination). In addition, given that Ramos-Velasquez did not submit any

corroborating evidence to support his testimony that he was persecuted, the BIA

appropriately concluded that Ramos-Velasquez failed to establish past

persecution or likelihood of future persecution on account of a protected ground.

Ramos-Velasquez’s withholding of removal claim thus fails.

      2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s holding that Ramos-Velasquez

failed to establish his entitlement to CAT protection. The BIA further determined

that even if Ramos-Velasquez’s testimony were credible, he did not demonstrate

a likelihood of future torture with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan

government. Substantial evidence supports this determination. First, Ramos-

Velasquez’s partner—whom he claims was also threatened by the gang—

continues to reside in Guatemala, in a community not far from Ramos-

Velasquez’s hometown, where she has experienced no gang-related problems.

This suggests that Ramos-Velasquez could safely relocate within Guatemala. See

                                       3                                   21-670
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). Second, although

Ramos-Velasquez contends that law enforcement did not assist him after the

alleged assault, government ineffectiveness in controlling crime does not amount

to acquiescence in torture. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th

Cir. 2016). Finally, Ramos-Velasquez reported that he never had any problems

with the Guatemalan government or its officers, including the police, and that he

does not think that the police or government could harm him in the future. Based

on these facts, we are not compelled to conclude that the BIA erred in denying

Ramos-Velasquez’s CAT claim.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                       4                                   21-670