Kelvin Moreno-Navarrete v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 15 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    KELVIN OSVALDO MORENO-                          No.    18-72822
    NAVARRETE, AKA Kelvin Moreno-
    Navarrete,                                      Agency No. A099-651-503
    Petitioner,
    MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 11, 2020**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: BOGGS,*** M. SMITH, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
    Petitioner Kelvin Moreno-Navarrete (Moreno-Navarrete) petitions for review
    of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA affirmed the
    *
    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.
    decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying Moreno-Navarrete’s applications for
    withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and relief
    under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This court has jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount
    them here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling. We DENY the
    petition for review and affirm the BIA’s decision.
    The BIA determined that, because Moreno-Navarrete did not raise the
    argument before the IJ, he waived his assertion that “he is a member of a cognizable
    particular social group defined as a person who reported gang members to the police
    and, as a result of which, the gang members have been put in jail and now seek
    revenge against him.” Moreno-Navarrete does not dispute that he waived this issue.
    Thus, the basis for Moreno-Navarrete’s withholding claim is waived. See Kumar v.
    Gonzales, 
    444 F.3d 1043
    , 1056 (9th Cir. 2006); Koerner v. Grigas, 
    328 F.3d 1039
    ,
    1048 (9th Cir. 2003).
    Even if not waived, the purported social group is not cognizable.          In
    Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 
    707 F.3d 1081
     (9th Cir. 2013), we ruled that the BIA
    erred when “it failed to consider significant evidence that Salvadoran society
    recognizes the unique vulnerability of people who testify against gang members in
    criminal proceedings, because gang members are likely to target these individuals
    as a group.” 
    Id. at 1092
    . In addition to explicitly noting that testimony in court
    2
    formed the basis of the particular social group, we cited the petitioner’s evidence
    about how “the Salvadoran legislature enacted a special witness protection law in
    2006 to protect people who testify against violent criminal elements . . . in
    Salvadoran court.” 
    Id.
     In contrast, Moreno-Navarrete bases his purported social
    group on the fact that he “[c]all[ed] the police on gang members resulting in two
    arrests.” Moreno-Navarrete never asserts that he testified in open court against such
    gang members. Therefore, applying Henriquez-Rivas, Moreno-Navarrete has not
    asserted that he is a member of a particular social group for the purposes of the INA.
    Moreno-Navarrete’s CAT claim focuses entirely on the Guatemalan
    government’s inability to “curb violence and contain criminal gangs and mafias,”
    citing a 2013 report from the Department of Justice. Nowhere does Moreno-
    Navarrete connect this general violence in Guatemala to show that “it is more likely
    than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to” that country. 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.16
    (c)(2). Moreno-Navarrete’s “generalized evidence of violence and crime
    in [Guatemala] is not particular to [him] and is insufficient to meet this standard.”
    Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 
    600 F.3d 1148
    , 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA had
    substantial evidence to conclude that Moreno-Navarrete was not eligible for CAT
    relief. See Flores-Vega v. Barr, 
    932 F.3d 878
    , 887 (9th Cir. 2019).
    Accordingly, we DENY the petition for review and affirm the decision of the
    BIA.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-72822

Filed Date: 12/15/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/15/2020