Opinion
18-71193
10-24-2022
ROLANDO MIGUEL RODAS VELASQUEZ, AKA Vasquez Alias, AKA Rolando Miguel Rodas, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 21, 2022 [**]Pasadena, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A213-016-237
Before: GOULD, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Rolando Miguel Rodas Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision dismissing his appeal of an order of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir. 2009), and "review for substantial evidence factual findings underlying the BIA's determination[s] that a petitioner is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief," Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). We deny Rodas's petition.
1. Rodas first argues that past abuse he suffered at his childhood home in Guatemala, and his fear that related mistreatment would occur if he is removed, establish his eligibility for asylum and withholding. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that this mistreatment was not "on account of" a protected ground. Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2021) (reviewing BIA determination of nexus between persecution and protected grounds for substantial evidence). Rodas's testimony does not demonstrate that his grandfather's wife abused him because of a protected ground in the past, nor does it show that Rodas will be mistreated because of a protected ground if he returns. Thus, Rodas lacks the required nexus for his asylum and withholding claims. Molina-Morales v. I.N.S., 237 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2001).
2. Rodas next contends that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal because, if removed, he will be targeted in Guatemala for gang recruitment or otherwise harmed on account of his perceived wealth and distinctive upbringing in the United States. The BIA correctly determined that neither Rodas's fear of gang recruitment nor his upbringing in the United States constitutes a cognizable protected ground for purposes of eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that "resistance to gang membership" by young Guatemalan men "is not a protected ground"), abrogated in part by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that neither "actual or imputed wealthy Americans" nor those who "have American mannerisms or accents" constitutes a particular social group).
3. To obtain protection under the CAT, Rodas "had the burden to prove that it is more likely than not that (1) []he, in particular, would be (2) subject to harm amounting to torture (3) by or with the acquiescence of a public official, if removed." Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1147 (9th Cir. 2021). Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Rodas did not show that "police or other authorities would actually participate in, consent, or turn a blind eye to [Rodas' s] torture." Although the country conditions evidence upon which Rodas relies indicates that Guatemala struggles with gang violence, corruption, and domestic abuse, "evidence that a government has been generally ineffective in preventing or investigating criminal activities" does not "raise an inference that public officials are likely to acquiesce in torture, absent evidence of corruption or other inability or unwillingness to oppose criminal organizations." Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014). And, the record indicates that the government has taken official steps to address these issues, which "support[s] the BIA's determination that the government is not wilfully blind[.]" Id. at 1035. The record therefore does not "compel the conclusion" that Guatemalan officials would acquiesce to Rodas's feared mistreatment. Id.
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).