Court Opinion

ID: 9389093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 17:01:00.349077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:25.075334
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN ORDONEZ, AKA Antonio Francisco             No.    18-70447
Gonzalez-Ordonez, AKA Alvarao De Los
Angeles Hernandez,                              Agency No. A205-716-787

                Petitioner,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
 v.

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.

      Juan Ordonez, 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 decision denying his applications for withholding of removal

      *
             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).
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). 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 Ordonez does not challenge the agency’s determinations that he

failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal based on proposed

particular social groups related to land ownership and family, we do not address

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

      As to Ordonez’s claim based on his indigenous identity, we do not disturb

the agency’s determination that Ordonez failed to establish he suffered harm that

rises to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th

Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of

treatment our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted)); see also Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022)

(court need not resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence review applies,

where result would be the same under either standard). Substantial evidence

supports the agency’s determination that Ordonez failed to establish a clear

probability of future persecution in Guatemala on this ground. See, e.g., Nagoulko,

333 F.3d at 1018 (feared persecution “too speculative” to support asylum claim).

                                         2                                     18-70447
       We do not address Ordonez’s contentions as to the government being unable

or unwilling to protect him because the agency did not deny relief on this ground.

See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In

reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by

that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

       Thus, Ordonez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

       Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Ordonez 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.

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

torture).

       PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                   18-70447