Court Opinion

ID: 9894935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 17:00:57.447754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:59.828728
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        NOV 3 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OBED HERNAN ALVARENGA                           No. 22-299
MARTINEZ,
                                                Agency No.       A206-685-996
              Petitioner,

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

              Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of an
                                Immigration Judge

                          Submitted March 14, 2023**
                      Submission Withdrawn March 15, 2023
                         Resubmitted November 3, 2023

Before: BRESS and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District Judge.

       Obed Hernan Alvarenga Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

       *
             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).
       ***
             The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

                                          1
petitions for review of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) negative reasonable fear

determination. “We review the IJ’s determination that the [noncitizen] did not

establish a reasonable fear of persecution or torture for substantial evidence.”

Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2018). We must uphold the IJ’s

determination “unless, based on the evidence, any reasonable adjudicator would be

compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Orozco-Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764,

774 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). We have jurisdiction over the timely

petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Alonso-Juarez v. Garland, 80 F.4th

1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2023). We deny the petition.

      Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Alvarenga

Martinez failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a

protected ground. Gang members sought to extort money from him because of his

perceived wealth, not because of his family membership. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v.

Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1019–22 (9th Cir. 2023); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,

1016 (9th Cir. 2010).

      We do not consider Alvarenga Martinez’s contentions regarding the

INTERPOL notice because they were not presented in the proceedings below, and

the government has preserved the exhaustion issue. See Santos-Zacaria v.

Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417–19 (2023) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is a

non-jurisdictional but mandatory claim-processing rule).

                                          2
      By failing to argue it in his brief, Alvarenga Martinez waived his challenge

to the IJ’s determination that he did not demonstrate a reasonable fear of torture

should he be returned to El Salvador. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d

1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      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