Court Opinion

ID: 9380247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 18:00:51.602784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.692606
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDVIN ANDRADE-RAMIREZ,                          No.    18-70615

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A070-125-318

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Edvin Andrade-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of

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

      *
             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 is governed by 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 review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400

F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition

for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Andrade-

Ramirez failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of his

membership in the proposed particular social group of “a member of his family

who has been targeted by sicarios on account of this membership.” See INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some

evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622

F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment

by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no

nexus to a protected ground”). To the extent Andrade-Ramirez raises particular

social groups in his opening brief that differ from the group considered by the

agency, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d

674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented

to the agency). Because Andrade-Ramirez does not challenge the agency’s

determinations that he failed to establish persecution on account of his status as an

indigenous Guatemalan, his nationality, or his religion, we do not address them.

                                          2                                    18-70615
See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus,

Andrade-Ramirez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Andrade-Ramirez 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

Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Andrade-

Ramirez’s contentions that the agency failed to consider appropriate factors and

evidence in its CAT analysis fail. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990

(9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA need not write an exegesis on every contention);

Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not

overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                         3                                     18-70615