Court Opinion

ID: 9651004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:01:19.818032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:28.788462
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WALTER J. ACEITUNO,                             No. 21-268
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A073-396-663
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Walter J. Aceituno, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 deferral of removal 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 deny the petition for review.

      Because Aceituno failed to contest the BIA’s determination that he waived

challenge to the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, we do not

address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT deferral of

removal because the record does not compel the conclusion that Aceituno’s past

harm constituted torture, and Aceituno 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 Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009);

see also Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2007) (detention and

multiple beatings did not rise to the level of torture).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                  21-268