Court Opinion

ID: 9909995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 18:01:00.878527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:31.904346
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 14 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE FELIPE IZARRARAZ CASTRO,                   No. 22-399
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A205-465-661
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted December 12, 2023**
                              San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, KOH, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Felipe Izarraraz Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) decision denying his

application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

      *
             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 Board’s denial of withholding of removal claims is reviewed for substantial

evidence. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We “must

uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary

conclusion.” Id. Where, as here, the Board affirms a decision by an Immigration

Judge (“IJ”) without an opinion, “we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the

[Board]’s decision.” Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny

relief.

          1.   Mr. Izarraraz Castro claims that the IJ did not have jurisdiction because

his Notice to Appear (“NTA”) lacked the time, place, and location of the proceeding.

The government properly argues that this claim is unexhausted. Santos-Zacaria v.

Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 419 (2023) (holding the exhaustion requirement is a non-

jurisdictional claim-processing rule); Fort Bend County v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843,

1849 (2019) (explaining that a court must enforce a claim-processing rule “if a party

properly raises it” (cleaned up)). Had Mr. Izarraraz Castro raised his claim to the

Board, it would nevertheless be foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez,

39 F.4th 1187, 1191–92 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that a defective NTA

does not deprive immigration court of subject-matter jurisdiction).

          2.   Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision to deny Mr. Izarraraz

Castro’s application for withholding of removal. To qualify for withholding of

removal, “a petitioner must prove a causal nexus between one of [his] statutorily

                                          2                                    22-399
protected characteristics and either [his] past harm or [his] objectively tenable fear

of future harm.” Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2023).

Even assuming this claim is properly exhausted, substantial evidence supports the

IJ’s finding that Mr. Izarraraz Castro did not sufficiently allege a nexus between a

protected ground and his alleged fear of persecution. While Mr. Izarraraz Castro

testified that he feared returning to Mexico because of violence experienced by his

extended family members, he presented no evidence demonstrating that he would be

targeted in Mexico because of his family ties. Nor can Mr. Izarraraz Castro’s alleged

fears of persecution based on generalized violence and organized crime in Mexico

establish a nexus to a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016

(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a non-citizen’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”).

      The petition for review is DENIED.

                                        3                                    22-399