Court Opinion

ID: 9891800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 18:00:40.285107+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:34.708931
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

SINFOROSO ELIAS GARCIA,                         No. 22-1676
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A205-321-102
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

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

      Sinforoso Elias Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of

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

      *
             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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.

2020). We deny the petition for review.

      The record does not compel the conclusion that Elias Garcia established

changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.

See Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (court

retained jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions related to the one-

year filing deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5) (changed and extraordinary

circumstances). Thus, Elias Garcia’s asylum claim fails.

      We do not disturb the agency’s determination that Elias Garia failed to

establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Baghdasaryan

v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant who alleges past

persecution has burden of proving that the treatment rises to the level of

persecution); see also Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir.

2022) (court need not resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence review

applies, where result would be the same under either standard). Substantial

evidence supports the agency’s determination that Elias Garcia failed to show a

clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d

1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively

reasonable). Thus, Elias Garcia’s withholding of removal claim fails.

                                         2                                   22-1676
      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Elias Garcia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured 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).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        3                                   22-1676