Luis Alvarez Gutierrez v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS ALVAREZ GUTIERREZ, AKA Luis No. 18-71234 A. Alvarez, AKA Carlos Alberto Alvarez 18-73059 Gutierrez, AKA Carlos Gutierrez Alvarez, AKA Juan Carlos Quintero, Agency No. A095-797-327 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 7, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: BOGGS,*** IKUTA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Luis Alvarez-Gutierrez appeals the determination of an immigration judge (IJ) * 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. that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico, his country of origin. He also seeks review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his motion to reopen proceedings in the case that led to his first removal. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the petitions for review. Alvarez-Gutierrez illegally reentered the United States in 2009. After the Department of Homeland Security reinstated his prior order of removal, he said that he was afraid to return to Mexico because of gang violence and threats against his family members there. An asylum officer determined that Alvarez-Gutierrez did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, a prerequisite for relief, and an IJ affirmed. 1. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s negative reasonable-fear determination. Orozco-Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021). Under this standard, we must affirm unless Alvarez-Gutierrez has shown that the evidence compels reversal. Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000). Non-citizens whose prior orders of removal have been reinstated may be eligible for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 830–32 (9th Cir. 2016). Before they may present their claims to an IJ, they must convince an asylum officer or an IJ that they have a “reasonable fear of persecution or torture.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c), (g). To do so, they must establish a “reasonable possibility” that they would be 2 persecuted on account of a protected ground or tortured in the country of removal. Id. § 1208.31(c). A ten-percent chance of persecution or torture suffices, Alvarado- Herrera v. Garland, 993 F.3d 1187, 1195, 1195 (9th Cir. 2021), but we require “a good reason to fear future persecution based on credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record.” Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 809 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 2008)). Non-citizens must also demonstrate that the government is responsible for the harm …

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