Court Opinion

ID: 4661960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-22 21:00:33.798945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:17.977560
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS BENOIT,                                  No.    17-70179

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A200-202-065

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 17, 2021**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Thomas Benoit, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the

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

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

      *
             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).
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.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Benoit failed

to establish the harm he experienced or fears in Haiti was or would be on account

of a protected ground. See 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”).

Thus, Benoit’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Benoit failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Haiti. See Wakkary v.

Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).

      As stated in the court’s March 27, 2017 order, the temporary stay of removal

remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                    17-70179