Coria-Vega v. Garland

Decision Date02 December 2022
Docket Number15-72969
PartiesGALDINO CORIA-VEGA, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

GALDINO CORIA-VEGA, Petitioner,
v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72969

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 2, 2022


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted November 10, 2022 [**] Seattle, Washington

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A098-176-807

Before: IKUTA and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, [***] District Judge.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Galdino Coria-Vega petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ's") order

1

denying Coria-Vega's applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to conduct judicial review, and we deny the petition.

We review factual findings for substantial evidence and any legal questions and constitutional claims de novo. Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003).

1. Coria-Vega contends that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's decision denying withholding of removal. To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, a non-citizen must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be subject to persecution on the basis of one of the protected grounds enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The petitioner here rests his application for withholding of removal on the protected grounds of political opinion and membership in a particular social group.

The IJ found that armed men threatened Coria-Vega and his coworkers for "financial gain, not on account of a protected ground." The BIA affirmed the IJ's determination, and substantial evidence in the record supports the BIA's conclusion because Coria-Vega acknowledged that all three incidents were motivated by financial gain. The agency could rely on Coria-Vega's testimony to find that he was subjected to threats of violence at the hand of the gangs for financial gain, not by reason of a

2

protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ("An alien'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."). The record thus indicates that Coria-Vega failed to meet his burden of establishing that any purported persecution occurred "because of" his political opinion or his membership in a particular social group. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

This conclusion disposes of Coria-Vega's withholding of removal application in its entirety. The agency thus appropriately denied his application for such relief.[1]

2. Coria-Vega challenges the denial of protection under the CAT. The CAT prevents the United States from removing a non-citizen when it is more likely than not that the non-citizen will be tortured upon arriving in the country of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Torture is defined by regulation as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" for an unlawful purpose. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). A petitioner must show that he is subject

3

to a particularized risk of torture. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). And the act of torture must be acquiesced in by a public official, meaning that the public official must be aware of or willfully blind to it. Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 770 (9th Cir. 2022). The burden of proof is on the applicant. 8 C.F.R....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT