Erick Moreno-Molina v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERICK ALEXANDER MORENO- No. 20-71258
MOLINA,
Agency No. A206-636-037
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 7, 2022**
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: HURWITZ, BRESS, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Erick Moreno-Molina petitions for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an order of an immigration
judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for withholding of removal and relief under
*
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 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Moreno-Molina also challenges the
BIA’s denial of his motion to remand to the IJ for consideration of new evidence.
We review denials of “withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial
evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). Under
substantial evidence review, we “must uphold the agency determination unless the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. We review the BIA’s denial of a
motion for remand for abuse of discretion. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095,
1098 (9th Cir. 2005).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for
review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of
removal based on Moreno-Molina’s failure to establish the required nexus to a
protected ground. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021)
(stating standard). The record does not compel the conclusion that Moreno-
Molina’s political opinion or any other protected ground was a reason why gang
members in El Salvador either have harmed him or would seek to do so in the
future. The record evidence supports the agency’s determination that Moreno-
Molina was threatened for refusing to join a gang, rather than for refusing to
support a political party. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th
Cir. 2008) (upholding the BIA’s “determination that a general aversion to gangs
2
does not constitute a political opinion for asylum purposes”), abrogated on other
grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013).
2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Moreno-
Molina’s application for CAT protection. The record evidence does not compel the
conclusion that Moreno-Molina will more likely than not be tortured if removed.
Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1029–30.
3. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Moreno-Molina’s
motion for a remand for the IJ to consider additional evidence. In his motion,
Moreno-Molina’s did not adduce “material” evidence that “could not have been
discovered or presented at the former hearing,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), nor did he
adduce evidence sufficient to support prima facie eligibility for relief. Silva v.
Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 718–19 (9th Cir. 2021).
PETITION DENIED.
3