Rodriguez Vitela v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 1, 2024
• Docket: 23-1734
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 1 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ VITELA, No. 23-1734 Agency No. Petitioner, A098-005-551 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of an Immigration Judge

Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges

Fernando Rodriguez Vitela, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of an immigration judge’s order affirming an asylum officer’s negative

reasonable fear determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for substantial evidence the agency’s reasonable fear determination, and we

* 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). review de novo due process challenges to reasonable fear proceedings. Orozco-

Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodriguez

Vitela failed to show a reasonable possibility that the harm he fears would be on

account of a protected ground. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th

Cir. 2018) (no basis for withholding of removal where petitioner did not show a

nexus to a protected ground).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that

Rodriguez Vitela failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-

Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (petitioner failed to

demonstrate government acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable

possibility of future torture).

Rodriguez Vitela’s claim the agency violated due process by denying him

the opportunity to gather and submit evidence and additional time to prepare for

his hearing fails because he has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder,

770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner

must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

2 23-1734 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 23-1734