Quintanilla-Jurado v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO QUINTANILLA-JURADO, No. 21-1326
Agency No.
Petitioner, A205-319-156
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 8, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH and DESAI, Circuit Judges, and AMON, District Judge.***
Mario Quintanilla-Jurado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his
appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding
of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
*
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 Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The BIA’s denials of withholding of
removal and CAT claims are reviewed for substantial evidence. Duran-Rodriguez
v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We “must uphold the agency
determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. Pure legal
issues are reviewed de novo. Rivera-Peraza v. Holder, 684 F.3d 906, 909 (9th
Cir. 2012). We deny Mr. Quintanilla-Jurado’s petition for review.
First, the BIA denied Mr. Quintanilla-Jurado’s withholding of removal
claim because he proposed two particular social groups that were not properly
raised before the IJ. The BIA properly declined to review the new groups for the
first time on appeal. See In re J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007).
Under the facts of this case, Mr. Quintanilla-Jurado did not exhaust “all
administrative remedies available to [him] as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
We therefore deny the petition as to Mr. Quintanilla-Jurado’s withholding of
removal claim.
Second, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Mr.
Quintanilla-Jurado was ineligible for protection under CAT. To qualify for CAT
protection, a movant bears the burden of proving that it is more likely than not
that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if
removed. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 891 (9th Cir. 2021). The
BIA did not err by finding that the evidence presented fails to establish that it is
more likely than not that the government of El Salvador would acquiesce in Mr.
Quintanilla-Jurado’s torture. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836
2
(9th Cir. 2016) (finding “inability to bring the criminals to justice” and “general
ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not
suffice to show acquiescence”). We therefore deny the petition as to Mr.
Quintanilla-Jurado’s CAT claim.
Finally, Mr. Quintanilla-Jurado has not established that the IJ violated his
due process rights. Mr. Quintanilla-Jurado’s allegation that the IJ did not
adequately weigh the evidence does not overcome the presumption that the IJ
reviewed all relevant evidence or establish that the alleged violation affected the
outcome of the proceeding. See Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000); Larita-Martinez v. I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1092, 1095–96 (9th Cir. 2000).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3