Edwin Orellana v. William Barr ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 13 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN OMAR ORELLANA, AKA No. 18-71589
Edwin Orellana Vigil,
Agency No. A204-366-290
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
AND ORDER
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 11, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and DAWSON,*** District Judge.
Petitioner Edwin Omar Orellana seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ ("BIA") denial of his claims for withholding of removal and protection
*
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 Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.1
1. We must uphold findings of fact unless the evidence compels a contrary
conclusion. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018). Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal because Petitioner
failed to demonstrate past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution
on account of a protected ground. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th
Cir. 2010). The evidence does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner will be
persecuted because of his membership in a social group consisting of his family.
Nothing compels the conclusion that MS-13 extorted Petitioner’s aunt and
kidnapped her daughter on account of their membership in Petitioner’s family,
rather than because of general criminality and a desire for economic gain. See
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that, where
the evidence suggests that someone "was victimized for economic and personal
reasons," the victimization does "not constitute persecution on account of [a
1
We also deny Petitioner’s motion to terminate proceedings for lack of
jurisdiction (Docket Entry No. 28). See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895
& n.4 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that "the lack of time, date, and place in the [notice
to appear] sent to [the petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of
jurisdiction over her case," where the petitioner received "the complete notice at a
later time . . . and appeared for her scheduled hearings").
2
protected ground]"), abrogated in part on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v.
Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Similarly, the evidence
does not compel the conclusion that MS-13 would impute the political opinion of
Petitioner’s cousin to Petitioner, where Petitioner never took part in any political
activity with his cousin.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
because Petitioner did not meet his burden to show that he would "more likely than
not" be tortured "by or with the acquiescence of a government official or other
person acting in an official capacity" if he were removed to El Salvador. Tamang,
598 F.3d at 1095. As explained above, the evidence does not compel the
conclusion that Petitioner would be targeted because of his membership in his
family. And "generalized evidence of violence and crime" in El Salvador does not
satisfy the standard for CAT protection. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,
1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
PETITION DENIED.
3