Roberto Carriedo-Rosas 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO CARRIEDO-ROSAS, No. 16-73927 Petitioner, Agency No. A097-818-065 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 10, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: BERZON, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Roberto Carriedo-Rosas, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of his 2004 expedited removal order for violation of his due process rights. He also seeks review of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) finding that he failed to establish a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, and he argues that the IJ deprived him of * 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). due process by declining to conduct a new hearing on remand from this court. We review an IJ’s determination that an alien did not establish a reasonable fear of persecution or torture for substantial evidence, reversing only where “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Orozco-Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021). We review legal claims, constitutional questions, and jurisdictional questions de novo. Guerrier v. Garland, 18 F.4th 304, 308 (9th Cir. 2021); Orozco-Lopez, 11 F.4th at 774. We dismiss the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction and deny in part. 1. Underlying Expedited Removal Order. We lack jurisdiction to review collateral attacks on underlying expedited removal orders absent three narrow exceptions that may be asserted only in a habeas proceeding. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A), (e); Guerrier, 18 F.4th at 308, 313. Here, Carriedo-Rosas has not sought review of his underlying expedited removal order through a habeas petition, nor has he challenged it on any of the grounds permitted by statute. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss Carriedo-Rosas’s challenge to his underlying expedited removal order.1 2. Reasonable Possibility of Persecution. In the proceedings on Carriedo- Rosas’s reinstated removal order, the IJ determined that Carriedo-Rosas failed to 1 Because we may not address the merits of Carriedo-Rosas’s argument, we deny his Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal. 2 establish a reasonable possibility of persecution “because of” a protected ground. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017) (“A person seeking withholding of removal must prove not only that his life or freedom will be threatened in his home country, but also that the threat is ‘because of’ one of the five listed reasons.”). To the extent Carriedo-Rosas has not waived this issue by failing to address it in his opening brief, see Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013), it fails on the merits. An isolated verbal altercation with a neighbor and extortion of a family member fall short of establishing past persecution, and fear of …

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