Elmer Chavarria-Ramirez v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELMER SAUL CHAVARRIA-RAMIREZ, No. 19-70504
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-541-250
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Elmer Saul Chavarria-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial
*
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).
evidence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Chavarria-Ramirez failed to
establish that the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador was or would be on
account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483
(1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or
circumstantial”); Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (to
establish a nexus to a political opinion ground, petitioner must show “(1) that [he]
had either an affirmative or imputed political opinion, and (2) that [he was]
targeted on account of that opinion.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Chavarria-Ramirez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
As stated in the court’s May 24, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2