Court Opinion

ID: 9380271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 19:00:34.280222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.865312
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED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

Victor Javier Sandoval Ramos,                   No. 21-25

              Petitioner,                       Agency No.       A204-387-155

  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**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, MILLER, Circuit Judges.

       Petitioner Victor Javier Sandoval Ramos, a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of the denial of his application for asylum and withholding

of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) denied petitioner’s application, and the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss the petition in part and

       *
            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).
deny the petition in part. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do

not recite them here.

      We review the denial of asylum and withholding of removal for

substantial evidence, and “must uphold the agency determination unless the

evidence compels a contrary decision.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d

1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).

      To the extent petitioner contends that the agency failed to consider his

age when evaluating whether he faced past persecution or has a well-founded

fear of future persecution, we lack jurisdiction to consider this challenge

because it was not exhausted before the agency. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1);

Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating that the

failure to exhaust a claim, absent an exception, deprives this court of

jurisdiction to consider the issue).

      To the extent petitioner challenges the agency’s other grounds for

denying asylum and withholding of removal, the decisions are supported by

substantial evidence. See Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2020)

(“An applicant who fails to satisfy the lower standard for asylum necessarily

fails to satisfy the more demanding standard for withholding of removal.”).

Petitioner bears the burden of proving eligibility for asylum and must

demonstrate that he has suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of

future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a

particular social group, or political opinion. See id. at 1141–42; 8 U.S.C.

                                         2                                      21-25
§ 1101(a)(42). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

petitioner failed to show that he suffered past persecution because he did not

allege any incidents in which he was the victim of a threat or physical

mistreatment. It is not clear that petitioner witnessed, or was otherwise aware

of, cartel members’ threats to his mother. Substantial evidence also supports the

agency’s determination that petitioner did not establish a well-founded fear of

future persecution on account of his membership in his family because many

years have passed since petitioner’s mother left Mexico after being threatened,

and a number of petitioner’s family members continue to reside safely in

Mexico. The record does not compel reversal of the agency’s conclusion that it

was “speculative” to infer that petitioner’s cousin and aunt were murdered on

account of their membership in their family.

      PETITION DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.1

1
      Petitioner’s motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 3) is DENIED.

                                        3                                    21-25