Rigoberto Romero v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 9, 2022
• Docket: 15-71645
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RIGOBERTO LOPEZ ROMERO, AKA No. 15-71645 Javier Macias, AKA Rigo Lopez Romeo, Agency No. A205-313-082 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 2, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Rigoberto Lopez Romero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from

an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding

* 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). of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Lopez Romero

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

ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding no

nexus to a protected ground where applicant feared returning to his home country

because gunmen, motivated by a desire to steal his grandfather’s land, murdered

his family members); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.

2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground).

Accordingly, Lopez Romero’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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

because Lopez Romero failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

1 Lopez Romero does not challenge the agency’s determination that his application for asylum was time barred.

2 15-71645 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 15-71645