Angel Estuardo MORALES-RANGEL, Luis Anibal Gutierrez-Jaciento, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: November 16, 2020
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Richard Miyamoto, Attorney, Phung, Miyamoto & Diaz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner Sergio Sarkany, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Angel Estuardo Morales-Rangel, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Morales-Rangel failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala and a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant's “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Morales-Rangel's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Morales-Rangel 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 Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
As stated in the court's February 16, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.