Moises Guzman-Marroquin v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Moises Guzman-Marroquin v. Loretta E. Lynch

639 F. App'x 447

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 2016

Docket12-71680

StatusUnpublished

This text of 639 F. App'x 447 (Moises Guzman-Marroquin v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moises Guzman-Marroquin v. Loretta E. Lynch, 639 F. App'x 447 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Moisés Guzman-Marroquin, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for Convention Against *448 Torture (CAT) 1 relief. We deny the petition.

Guzman asserts that the evidence compels the conclusion that he is entitled to CAT relief. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir.2011); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 815 & n. 1, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We disagree. We have carefully reviewed the record, and it-does not compel a determination that he would be tortured in Guatemala by or with the acquiescence of the government. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009). The most it shows is that there are gang problems in Guatemala, and that he was threatened and had his house tagged by a gang member after he danced with the gang member’s girlfriend. He did not report the incidents to the police, because he did not think they would help him.

We note that Guzman suggests that he was denied due process because his counsel was not sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable and the IJ failed to intervene in the proceedings to a greater extent. See Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 727-28 (9th Cir.2000). However, Guzman did not raise that issue when he appealed to the BIA; the issue is, therefore, unex-hausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004); Rashtabadi v. INS, 23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (9th Cir.1994).

Petition DENIED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ***

Moisés Guzman-Marroquin, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for Convention Against *448 Torture (CAT) 1 relief. We deny the petition.

Guzman asserts that the evidence compels the conclusion that he is entitled to CAT relief. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir.2011); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 815 & n. 1, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We disagree. We have carefully reviewed the record, and it-does not compel a determination that he would be tortured in Guatemala by or with the acquiescence of the government. See Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009). The most it shows is that there are gang problems in Guatemala, and that he was threatened and had his house tagged by a gang member after he danced with the gang member’s girlfriend. He did not report the incidents to the police, because he did not think they would help him.

We note that Guzman suggests that he was denied due process because his counsel was not sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable and the IJ failed to intervene in the proceedings to a greater extent. See Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 727-28 (9th Cir.2000). However, Guzman did not raise that issue when he appealed to the BIA; the issue is, therefore, unex-hausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004); Rashtabadi v. INS, 23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (9th Cir.1994).

Petition DENIED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

639 F. App'x 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moises-guzman-marroquin-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack