Grajales-Velasquez v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSIEL GRAJALES-VELASQUEZ, No. 22-179
Agency No.
Petitioner, A213-082-606
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 27, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Osiel Grajales-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of an
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for cancellation of removal
and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We
dismiss in part and deny in part.
*
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).
1. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that
Grajales-Velasquez is ineligible for cancellation of removal. Although Grajales-
Velasquez frames his argument in due process terms, suggesting that the agency’s
weighing of the relevant evidence violated his due process rights, his argument
boils down to a challenge to the merits of the agency’s determination that his
removal would not cause his U.S.-citizen children exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship. This court lacks jurisdiction to review that factual
determination, see Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1627 (2022)—even when a
challenge to that determination is “recast” as a due process argument, see Vilchiz-
Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012).
2. The BIA did not err in its determination that Grajales-Velasquez is
ineligible for withholding of removal because there is no nexus between the
persecution he fears and a protected ground. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d
1136, 1142 n.2 (9th Cir. 2021). Grajales-Velasquez did not provide any evidence
to support the conclusion that cartel members harmed him or his relatives because
of their family relationship. Moreover, any errors in the IJ’s analysis of Grajales-
Velasquez’s withholding claim are harmless, given the BIA’s de novo review of
that claim. See Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.
2015). And even if the BIA incorrectly applied the “one central reason” asylum
standard for evaluating nexus rather than the “a reason” withholding standard, see
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358 (9th Cir. 2017), this error is
harmless because the BIA properly determined that there was no nexus at all
2 22-179
between the harm Grajales-Velasquez fears and his family membership, see Singh
v. Barr, 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019).1
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
1
Grajales-Velasquez forfeited any asylum or Convention Against Torture claims
by failing to raise them in his opening brief. See Perez-Camacho v. Garland, 54
F.4th 597, 602 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022).
3 22-179