Court Opinion

ID: 9955820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 16:01:15.100972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:27.197523
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 29 2024
                                                                    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGARDO ANTONIO ASCENCIO                       No. 20-72995
MEJIA,                                         Agency No.
                                               A216-554-670
             Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:     TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Edgardo Antonio Ascencio Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

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

      **
             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 Ascencio

Mejia failed to establish he was or would be persecuted 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”).

      Because Ascencio Mejia failed to establish any nexus at all, he also failed to

satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,

846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).

      Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

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

because Ascencio Mejia 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 El

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

      Ascencio Mejia’s contentions regarding the Interpol Red Notice and

ineffective assistance of counsel are not properly before the court because he failed

to raise them before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of

administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S.

                                        2                                  20-72995
411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing

rule).

         Ascencio Mejia’s claim the agency violated due process by denying him

access to counsel fails because he has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v.

Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a

petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”);

Usubakunov v. Garland, 16 F.4th 1299, 1303 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[N]oncitizens have

the right to counsel in removal proceedings, albeit not the right to counsel paid for

by the government.”).

         Ascencio Mejia’s motion to supplement the opening brief (Docket Entry No.

27) is granted. The clerk will fill the supplemental brief received at Docket Entry

No. 28. The renewed requests for appointment of counsel and bond contained in

Docket Entry No. 28 are denied.

         We do not consider the materials Ascencio Mejia references in his opening

brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,

963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

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

         PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                  20-72995