Garfias-Chavez v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 20, 2023
• Docket: 21-1057
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Ubaldo Garfias-Chavez, No. 21-1057

Petitioner, Agency No. A205-296-973

v. MEMORANDUM* Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 18, 2023** Portland, Oregon

Before: RAWLINSON, BEA, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Ubaldo Garfias-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (Board) dismissal of his appeal

of the Immigration Judge’s order denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). We review questions of law de novo, and factual findings for substantial

* 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). evidence. See Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2019). “Under the

substantial evidence standard, we uphold the [Board’s] determination unless

compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Garfias could

safely and reasonably relocate within Mexico. The Board properly assessed the

relocation factors. See Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th Cir. 2004). It

noted that there were places within Mexico that had lower levels of crime and it

was unlikely that the rival family or criminal enterprises would look for Garfias

outside of Michoacán. Additionally, the Board recognized that Garfias was

young, was in good health, and had significant resources to help with his

relocation. Although Garfias may disagree with how the Board weighed the

evidence, nothing in the record compels a contrary conclusion. See Singh, 914

F.3d at 658.

2. The Board concluded that Garfias did not meet his burden of establishing

that he would be tortured upon his return to Mexico. Garfias did not challenge

this conclusion; thus, he has forfeited this claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,

94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996). However, even if not forfeited, because

substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that he could relocate

within Mexico, the Board properly concluded that he is not eligible for CAT

relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c).

2 21-1057 PETITION DENIED.

3 21-1057