Chicas-Navarrete v. Garland

• Decision Date: 17 January 2023
• Docket Number: 21-70827
• Parties: PEDRO CHICAS-NAVARRETE, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

PEDRO CHICAS-NAVARRETE, Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 21-70827

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 17, 2023

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted January 9, 2023 ^[**] Pasadena, California

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A215-859-383

Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM^[*]

Pedro Chicas-Navarrete, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have

1

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision under Matter of Burbano, 20 I. &N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), "we review the IJ's order as if it were the BIA's." Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2011). We review "denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for 'substantial evidence.'" Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Kamalyan v. Holder, 620 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010)). "In order to reverse the BIA, we must determine 'that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it-and also compels the further conclusion' that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)).

1. The IJ found that Chicas-Navarrete was "statutorily barred from asylum" because his asylum application arrived well after the one-year deadline and neither extraordinary circumstances nor changed circumstances justified the late filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). In this court, Chicas-Navarrete argues that he established a change of circumstances in El Salvador with country condition reports showing that violence, trafficking, and corruption have "worsened" since his departure in 2009.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that Chicas-Navarrete failed to show "changed circumstances that materially affect his eligibility for asylum." The

2

cited country reports only suggest that drugs and corruption "remain[]" significant problems for El Salvador, not that the situation has grown "exponentially worse" as Chicas-Navarrete contends. Moreover, as the IJ noted, Chicas-Navarrete was concerned about these problems even "prior to his departure from El Salvador." At most, Chicas-Navarrete's cited evidence appears to be "[n]ew evidence confirming what [he] already knew," which "does not constitute changed circumstances." See Budiono v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2016).

2. The IJ also found, in the alternative, that the asylum claim failed because Chicas-Navarrete did not "meet his burden to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground." See Sarkar v. Garland, 39 F.4th 611, 622 (9th Cir. 2022).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that...