Court Opinion

ID: 9943512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 18:01:01.79485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:11.382001
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2024
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AROLDO GABRIEL-CARRILO,                         No.   22-627

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A095-743-565

                                                MEMORANDUM*
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 13, 2024**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, NGUYEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges

      Aroldo Gabriel-Carrilo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s

(IJ) denial of withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against

      *
             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).
Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the

petition.

      “We review questions of law, such as whether a proposed particular social

group is cognizable for purposes of withholding of removal, de novo.” Macedo

Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 2021). And we review factual

findings for substantial evidence, upholding them unless the evidence compels a

contrary result. Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland, 8 F.4th 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2021).

      1. Withholding of removal. By failing to raise the issue in his opening brief,

Gabriel-Carrilo waived any challenge to the BIA’s conclusion that his proposed

particular social group (“PSG”)—“persons subjected to child molestation as young

as five years old”—is non-cognizable, as the group is defined solely by harm

common to its members. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020)

(issues not raised in the opening brief are waived).

      Gabriel-Carrilo’s claim based upon his other PSGs fails, too. He waived any

challenge to the BIA’s determination that he failed to establish a “nexus” between

his claimed persecution and any imputed political opinion or membership in his

proposed group of “America returned Guatemalans being wealthy and particularly

targeted by gangs,” or his proffered familial groups. See Hernandez v. Garland, 47

F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (refusing to address an argument that the petitioner

did not “specifically and distinctly” argue in his opening brief).

                                          2
      In any event, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that

Gabriel-Carrilo failed to establish that any past harm that he experienced at the

orphanages was inflicted on account of a statutorily protected ground. Substantial

evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Gabriel-Carrilo failed to establish that

he will “more likely than not” face persecution in Guatemala on the basis of imputed

political opinion or membership in his returnee or familial PSGs. See Wakkary v.

Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2).

      2. CAT. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief on

the grounds that Gabriel-Carrilo failed to establish that he would more likely than

not be tortured upon his return to in Guatemala and that the Guatemalan government

would acquiesce in such conduct. For nearly four decades, he has neither been

threatened nor harmed by, nor been in contact with, anyone who previously

subjected him to abuse at the orphanages; and there is no evidence that any of his

perceived torturers maintain an interest in harming him, owing both to the passage

of time and the fact that he is no longer a child. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d

1136, 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting that a “speculative fear of torture is not sufficient

to satisfy the applicant’s burden” for protection under CAT).

      PETITION DENIED.1

      1
          The motion for a stay of removal is denied.

                                           3