Jefferson Remocaldo Hadraki v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFERSON REMOCALDO HADRAKI, No. 15-72850
Petitioner, Agency No. A057-826-914
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Jefferson Remocaldo Hadraki, a native and citizen of the Philippines,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825,
830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Because the agency concluded that Remocaldo Hadraki was not eligible for
asylum due to his aggravated felony theft offense, we do not reach Remocaldo
Hadraki’s contentions regarding the merits of his asylum claim. See 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i); Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds
relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see
also United States v. Flores, 901 F.3d 1150, 1161 (9th Cir. 2018) (concluding that
conviction for receipt of stolen property under California Penal Code § 496d(a) is
categorically an aggravated felony).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Remocaldo
Hadraki failed to establish that the government of the Philippines was or is unable
or unwilling to control his alleged persecutors. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592
F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An applicant alleging past persecution has the
burden of establishing that (1) his treatment rises to the level of persecution; (2) the
persecution was on account of one or more protected grounds; and (3) the
persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government
was unable or unwilling to control.”); Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154
2 15-72850
(9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel finding petitioner faced persecution by
forces the government was unwilling or unable to control). Thus, Remocaldo
Hadraki’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Remocaldo Hadraki failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to the
Philippines. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
(possibility of torture too speculative).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72850