Opinion
18-73433
10-25-2022
CARLOS ANTONIO NUNEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 21, 2022 [**] San Francisco, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-084-220
Before HAWKINS, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Carlos Antonio Nunez-Gonzalez ("Nunez-Gonzalez"), a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") order denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Nunez-Gonzalez sought withholding of removal on account of his membership in the particular social group of family members that are wealthy landowners. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Nunez-Gonzalez failed to establish a sufficient nexus for purposes of his withholding of removal claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017).
In his petition for review, Nunez-Gonzalez does not challenge the BIA's nexus determination regarding his proposed social group consisting of Guatemalans who witness criminal gang activity and subsequently report what they saw to the police. See Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (arguments not raised in the opening brief are forfeited).
Because the BIA's determination was made assuming Nunez-Gonzalez was credible and because it is supported by substantial evidence, we need not consider Nunez-Gonzalez's arguments regarding the IJ's adverse credibility determination. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Although family membership is "the quintessential particular social group," Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted), the BIA concluded that Nunez-Gonzalez submitted no evidence that his uncle or his cousin were killed because of their familial status, see Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 910 (9th Cir. 2018). Here, the BIA reasonably relied on evidence that Nunez- Gonzalez's land-owning family members who continue to live in Guatemala have not experienced any continued harm or threats.
Even assuming that a nexus to a protected ground existed, Nunez-Gonzalez conceded that he could safely relocate within Guatemala to avoid any future harm. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019).
Nunez-Gonzalez's challenge to the relocation determination is not properly before this Court because he failed to exhaust that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. Nunez-Gonzalez did not demonstrate that he would more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18; see Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014). The BIA reasonably found that Nunez-Gonzalez failed to demonstrate an individualized risk of torture if he were returned to Guatemala. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED.
[*] 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).