Court Opinion

ID: 9902247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-24 18:00:40.548155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:48.206807
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUDY RESINOS-CHAVARRIA,                         No. 22-878
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A206-675-471
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                     Argued and Submitted November 9, 2023
                              Pasadena, California

Before: W. FLETCHER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and SCHREIER, District
Judge.**

      Rudy Resinos-Chavarria, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

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

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision that Resinos had not met his burden of proof

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
              The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention against Torture

(“CAT”). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.

We deny the petition.

      We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where the BIA cites Burbano

and provides its own review of the evidence and the law, we review both the IJ and

the BIA’s decision. See Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir.

2022). We review findings of fact for substantial evidence. Castillo v. Barr, 980

F.3d 1278, 1283 (9th Cir. 2020). The IJ or BIA’s findings of fact are “conclusive

unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the

contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

      Resinos argues he has established eligibility for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under CAT. To succeed in an asylum claim, an applicant must

prove he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution

in his country of nationality on account of a protected ground. To succeed in a

withholding of removal claim, an applicant must prove a “clear probability” his life

or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal because of a protected

ground. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 (1984); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

Membership in a particular social group (“PSG”) is a protected ground. 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.13(b). To succeed in an asylum or withholding of removal claim, an

applicant must further prove that his persecution was or would be at the hands of

                                       2                                   22-878
the government or by “forces that the government was unable or unwilling to

control.” Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010); see also

Reyes-Reyes v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 782, 788 (9th Cir. 2004). To succeed in a claim

for protection under CAT, an applicant must prove it is “more likely than not” he

will be tortured upon return to his home country. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). There

must be sufficient state action involved in the torture. Id. § 208.18(a)(1) (“Torture

is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering . . . is intentionally inflicted

. . . by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public

official acting in an official capacity . . . .”).

       Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the Guatemalan

government is able and willing to control the Zeta cartel, and that the Guatemalan

government was not involved in the incidents here. This conclusion is fatal to all

three of Resinos’s claims. The Guatemalan Human Rights Report says Guatemala

has a functioning police force and over 22,000 criminals in its prisons. The

evidence shows that the Zeta cartel fears the police; the cartel members that

threatened Resinos were running from the police and warned him not to report the

incident. Because Resinos did not report the incident and it is therefore unlikely

the government knew about it, any potential harm cannot be attributed to

Guatemalan governmental action or acquiescence.

       Resinos counters that the 2015 State Department Report on Human Rights

                                             3                                  22-878
for Guatemala says impunity is widespread in Guatemala and further argues that

the 22,000 criminals in prison comprise less than one tenth of one percent of the

Guatemalan population. Resinos presents no evidence that the Guatemalan

government is directly involved in his interactions with the Zetas. Under the

deferential substantial evidence standard, the evidence Resinos presents does not

compel reversal of the IJ and BIA’s conclusions. See Diaz-Escobar v. INS, 782

F.2d 1488, 1493 (9th Cir. 1986).

      Because we decide Resinos failed to establish the Guatemalan government is

unwilling or unable to control the Zeta cartel, we need not reach the question of

whether Resinos’s proposed PSGs are valid or whether he failed to establish a

nexus.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        4                                   22-878