Mariano Santiago Grande v. Merrick Garland


NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIANO SANTIAGO GRANDE, No. 20-72612 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-823-656 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 29, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: BOGGS,*** OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Mariano Santiago Grande (“Santiago Grande”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals * 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 Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). “Where the BIA writes its own decision, as it did here, we review the BIA’s decision, except to the extent it expressly adopts the IJ’s decision.” Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2020). “We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings, which should be upheld unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Id. at 1076 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition for review. 1. As a preliminary matter, Santiago Grande argues that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction because the Notice to Appear failed to specify the date, time, and location of his initial removal hearing, even though a later notice provided that information. This argument is foreclosed by our recent en banc decision in United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1192-93 & 1193 n.9 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that a defective notice to appear does not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction). 2. To qualify for withholding of removal, “the applicant must demonstrate that it is ‘more likely than not that he or she would be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion upon removal to [the country in question].’” Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 2 705, 719 (9th Cir. 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)). The requirement that the applicant show that he or she would be persecuted “on account of” a protected ground is often referred to as the “nexus” requirement. Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Santiago Grande failed to establish nexus to a protected ground. Santiago Grande sought relief based on the particular social group of “adult male member[s] of the Santiago Grande family.”1 However, the record does not compel the conclusion that Santiago Grande …

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