Court Opinion

ID: 9389439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:44.305595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.023822
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO ALBERTO RIVAS-LEMUS,                      No.    21-70164

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A072-442-767

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Pedro Alberto Rivas-Lemus, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947

F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law.

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the

petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rivas-Lemus

failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of his political

opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82 (1992) (petitioner’s

resistance to recruitment, without more, did not establish guerrillas imputed

a political opinion to him); Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir.

2005) (to establish a nexus to political opinion, petitioner must show “(1) that [he]

had either an affirmative or imputed political opinion, and (2) that [he was]

targeted on account of that opinion”).

      To the extent Rivas-Lemus raises a particular social group claim in his

opening brief, we do not address it because the agency did not deny relief on this

ground, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (we

consider only the grounds relied upon by the agency), and Rivas-Lemus does not

contend the agency erred in this regard, see Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d

1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, Rivas-Lemus’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims fail.

                                          2                                     21-70164
      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Rivas-Lemus 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 Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no

likelihood of torture).

      Rivas-Lemus’s claims that the agency violated his right to due process,

ignored evidence, applied incorrect legal standards, or otherwise erred in its

analysis fail 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.”).

      Rivas-Lemus’s claim that the agency erred by failing to make a credibility

determination fails. See Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669, 1681 (2021) (the

BIA “appl[ies] a presumption of credibility if the IJ did not make an explicit

adverse credibility determination.”).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          3                                      21-70164