Opinion
17-71422
10-06-2022
VICTOR MANUEL VELASQUEZ-ARGUEDAS, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 4, 2022 Pasadena, California
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. A095-761-123
Before: FORREST and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Petitioner Victor Manuel Velasquez-Arguedas, an Afro-Peruvian citizen of Peru, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
We review factual findings under the "substantial evidence" standard. Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2021). Under this deferential standard, the agency's decision stands unless a "reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Where the BIA "adopts or relies on the IJ's" opinion, the court reviews both decisions. Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2019).
Velasquez-Arguedas does not challenge the agency's denial of asylum or its findings regarding fear of future persecution in his opening brief. These issues are therefore waived. Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020). Velasquez-Arguedas challenges only the agency's denial of withholding of removal based on its failure to find a nexus between his past persecution and his race or political opinion, and the agency's denial of CAT protection.
1. Withholding of Removal.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Velasquez-Arguedas failed to establish a nexus between his persecution and his Afro-Peruvian race or his political belief that all races are equal. To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, the applicant must establish "a 'clear probability' of persecution because of a protected ground." Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021). The IJ found that the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) terrorist group members who targeted Velasquez-Arguedas for recruitment were motivated purely by criminal purposes. The BIA noted that Velasquez-Arguedas failed to point to specific evidence that the MRTA targeted him because of his race or his belief in racial equality and found no clear error in the IJ's determination regarding the MRTA's motivation. A reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find to the contrary where there was no evidence that Velasquez-Arguedas was targeted due to his race or political beliefs, and where he testified that he believed he was targeted because the members knew his father and because he resisted their demands. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
2. CAT Relief.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT protection. To qualify for CAT protection, Velasquez-Arguedas must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if removed to Peru. Santos-Ponce, 987 F.3d at 891. The IJ found that: (1) any future persecution was speculative; (2) Velasquez-Arguedas failed to show a particularized risk of torture; and (3) his evidence regarding discrimination against Afro-Peruvians, while "troubling," did not reflect that the government is willfully blind to torture committed by third parties. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision. A reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to conclude to the contrary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Velasquez-Arguedas lived in Peru without issue for almost two decades before he came to the United States. He could not explain why he would be targeted by anyone if he returned to Peru. Velasquez-Arguedas's country conditions evidence did indicate problems with racial discrimination in Peru. But this evidence would not compel a reasonable adjudicator to conclude that the government is willfully blind to torture. Further, evidence in the record indicates that the government takes the MRTA and similar terrorist groups seriously, and that the MRTA is no longer as active as it had once been.
PETITION DENIED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.