Guillermo Chacon Chabur v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 17 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO FRANCISCO CHACON Nos. 19-71763
CHABUR, 20-70526
Petitioner, Agency No. A014-605-076
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 5, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: RAWLINSON and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and S. MURPHY,***
District Judge.
*
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 Stephen J. Murphy III, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Guillermo Francisco Chacon Chabur (Chacon), a native and
citizen of Colombia, seeks review of an order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of relief under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Chacon also challenges the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen.
1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. See
Medina-Rodriguez v. Barr, 979 F.3d 738, 744, 751 (9th Cir. 2020) (applying
substantial evidence standard to CAT claim). Chacon asserts that he was a
confidential informant in the 90s for a federal task force investigating the now-
defunct Cali cartel and Mexican mafia for drug smuggling. He testified before
several grand juries, leading to convictions, and survived an assassination attempt
by the Cali cartel in 1993.
However, Chacon presented no evidence that cartel members have targeted
him since. He and his expert witness offered only generalized speculation that
Chacon may be targeted upon returning to Colombia. See Gomez Fernandez v.
Barr, 969 F.3d 1077, 1091 (9th Cir. 2020) (rejecting a challenge to the denial of
CAT relief because “speculation that the same individuals who targeted
[petitioner’s] family members in 1996 would target him now if he returned is
insufficient”). And Chacon failed to show that it is more likely than not that he
2
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Colombian
government. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014)
(explaining that general ineffectiveness in preventing crime does not establish
government acquiescence “absent evidence of corruption or other inability or
unwillingness to oppose criminal organizations”).
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
See Silva v. Barr, 965 F.3d 724, 735-36 (9th Cir. 2020) (applying abuse of
discretion standard to denial of motion to reopen). The removal of former Cali
cartel members to Colombia and alleged withdrawal of the FARC guerrilla force
from the peace process do not change the conclusion that Chacon failed to
establish eligibility for CAT relief. See id. at 736 (affirming denial of motion to
reopen where new evidence did not establish prima facie case for relief).
PETITION DENIED.
3