NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 27 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADONAI MATA-SANGUINETTY, No. 22-334 Petitioner, Agency No. A203-607-350 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 10, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE, District Judge.*** Felix Adonai Mata-Sanguinetty (Mata), a native of Venezuela and a citizen of Venezuela and Colombia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his * 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 Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.1 When the BIA adopts some of the IJ’s reasoning and adds its own further analysis, we review both decisions. Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). We review the BIA’s denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Kamalyan v. Holder, 620 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010)). “[T]o reverse the BIA, we must determine ‘that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it—and also compels the further conclusion’ that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief.” Id. (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)). 1. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Mata is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal under the so-called “persecutor bar.” An applicant who has “assisted” or “otherwise participated” in the persecution of any person on account of political opinion is subject to a mandatory bar to asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(i) (asylum); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(i) (withholding). 1 Mata argues that the IJ erred in finding him not to be credible and concluding that the firm resettlement bar applies to him. Like the BIA, we do not address these issues, as they are not necessary to the disposition of Mata’s claims. 2 22-334 In applying mandatory bars to relief, the government must first make “a threshold showing of particularized evidence of the bar’s applicability before placing on the applicant the burden to rebut it.” Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2016). But where “the evidence indicates that one or more of the grounds for mandatory denial of the application for relief”—such as the persecutor bar—“may apply, the alien shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that such …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals