Bolanos Casas v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 22, 2023
• Docket: 23-541
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR BOLANOS CASAS, No. 23-541 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-941-255 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Hector Bolanos Casas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

* 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.

2020). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Bolanos Casas

failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected

ground. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017);

Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Purely personal

retribution is, of course, not persecution on account of political opinion.”). We do

not address Bolanos Casas’ contentions as to whether the past harm rose to the

level of persecution or whether the government of Mexico is unable or unwilling to

protect him because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-

Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision

of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, Bolanos Casas’ withholding of removal

claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Bolanos Casas failed to show he will be tortured by or with the consent or

acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589

F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

2 23-541 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 23-541