Eduardo Reyes-Martinez v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDUARDO REYES-MARTINEZ, AKA No. 20-70897 Eduardo Reyes-Santander, AKA Carlos Santander, Agency No. A076-211-691 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submission Deferred March 2, 2021 Submitted September 20, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: McKEOWN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. 1 Petitioner Eduardo Reyes-Martinez, a Mexican citizen and national, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Petitioner’s request for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and for withholding of removal from the United States based on fear of future persecution by Mexican police. The BIA’s order affirmed that denial. Petitioner also challenges a regulation that prevents noncitizens subject to a reinstated removal order from applying for asylum. We find that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s order, and that Petitioner’s challenge to the regulation precluding his asylum application must fail. Accordingly, we deny the petition. This Court has jurisdiction to review final orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The BIA’s denial of withholding of removal (“WOR”) and CAT relief is reviewed for substantial evidence and will be upheld if it is supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Kamalyan v. Holder, 620 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010); Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2011); Haile v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1122, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2011)). The Court will reverse the BIA only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A)–(B). 2 To obtain relief under the CAT, a petitioner bears the burden to prove that it is “more likely than not that he or she would be tortured” if removed to the proposed country of removal. Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 914 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)). Petitioner raises four arguments challenging the IJ’s denial of CAT relief: (1) that the IJ failed to recognize that Mexican police officers who previously tortured Petitioner were public officials, and therefore applied the wrong legal standard regarding the Mexican government’s acquiescence to torture; (2) that the IJ improperly placed the burden of proof on Petitioner to show his inability to safely relocate within Mexico; (3) that the IJ erroneously disregarded threats that Mexican police made against Petitioner; and (4) that the IJ failed to consider relevant evidence about past torture and country conditions. The …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals